Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, without following provisions contained in clauses 12.1 to 12.5 of the Secondary School Code, no such approval could have been granted by respondent no.2. He places reliance upon the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jeejau Shikshan Sanstha Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2011(7) ALL MR 506 and also the Government Resolution dated 17th February, 2012 which is filed today along with other documents and collectively marked "X".

5. Shri Jibkhate, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that this is not the only instance of any change of management of the school but a necessary consequence arising from the amalgamation of earlier Trust with respondent no.1 Trust. He submits that a scheme permitting such amalgamation and the running of the Trust framed under Section 50(A) of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act has also received its approval of the Assistant Charity Commissioner. Therefore, he submits that the Secondary School Code has no application to the facts of the present case. He also submits that the petitioners who are the teachers of the school have no locus standi in such a case.

6. Upon consideration of the provisions of Section 50(A) of Trust Act and also Secondary School Code, we find that there is substance in the arguments for the learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

7. In the present case, two Trusts have been amalgamated and scheme framed for their management under Section 50 (A) of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act has also been sanctioned. So this is not a case wherein Management has been transferred from one institute to another institute. This is a case wherein one institute has ceased to exist after its merger with the other institute and the effect is that erstwhile Management has also ceased to exist and in fact the previous management has now assumed a new form under the auspices of the Trust with which it has been amalgamated and it is the respondent no.1 here. Clauses 12.1 to 12.5 of the Secondary School Code speak only about change of management of the school and whenever it is proposed, the approval of the Deputy Director Education, by following the procedure prescribed therein has to be obtained. But that is not the case here. No such approval was necessary.

9. Once it is disclosed by the facts, which is the case here, that the provisions of Secondary School Code are not applicable to the case and the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act are applicable, the judgments, the Government Resolution and other documents relied upon by the petitioners, would rather be of no assistance to them.

10. In this view of the matter, we find no substance in the petition and it deserves to be dismissed. The petition stands dismissed. No costs.