Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Attention is invited to judgment reported at 2010 (1) Mh.L.J. 391 (Chandrakant Shikshan Sanstha .vrs. Rajendra Ramaji Belekar and others), for this purpose.

22. It is pointed out that word "School" has been removed on 26.08.2007 from Rule 26[1][iv] because closure of such school is regulated under Rule 25-A. Our attention is also invited to relevant provision of Secondary School Code to urge that here withdrawal of recognition is by competent Authority, namely the Deputy Director.

Laxmi Education Society vs. State Of Maharashtra, observes that situations specified under sub-rule (1) of Rule 26 are on account of reduction of establishment. By its very nature, temporary reduction of establishment is found attributable to the closure of a course of studies, reduction of the number of classes or division or fall in the number of pupils or change in the curriculum effecting number of certain category of employees. It is held not comparable with the closure of a school as a whole. The fact that one of the situations specified in sub-rule (1) of Rule 26 is "any other bonafide reasons of similar nature" is construed not to mean that even a closure of a school as a whole would be governed by sub-rule (2) of Rule 26. Whereas, the said sub-clause(v) is read Ejusdem generis keeping in mind the preceding sub-clauses in the same Rule. Rule 25A and Rule 26 are stated to operate in different fields mutually exclusive. While considering Clause 7.5 of the Secondary School Code, the said Division bench holds :-