Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The Court then made the following observation:

"It also appears to be an admitted position that the Secondary Schools Code does not apply to polytechnics."

30. The Court also considered the Preamble of the Act, certain definitions and held that unless a person was an employee of a private school, he had no right to file an appeal under Section 9. The Tribunal was, therefore, wholly right in coming to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the Appeal.

31. The Court noted that the view which had been taken by the Tribunal and upheld by the Court would result in serious prejudice to employees of such schools. Their rights would be jeopardized but the legislation should be interpreted as it is and the Court cannot enact or legislate. If the language of the Act is unambiguous and clear, effect has to be given to it. The Court further observed that even if it is assumed that Polytechnic is a school, it cannot be said that to be a private school as defined in Section 2 (20) of the Act and the provisions of the Act, therefore, could not be invoked. In Mohd. Israr Siddique, (Writ Petition No. 1527 of 1987) decided on November 30, 1990, a similar question came up for consideration before another Division Bench. The petitioner, who was appointed as a Lecturer in Vivekanand Polytechnic School and relieved from service, approached this Court contending that the action taken against him was illegal and unlawful. He relied upon the provisions of the Bombay Civil Services Rules as also the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Dismissing the petition, this Court observed that nothing had been pointed out to the Court as to how the provisions of the Bombay Civil Services Rules or of Act or of the School Code were made applicable to respondent-institute. In absence of any Resolution or statutory Rule, the petitioner could not claim protection thereunder. The petition was, therefore, dismissed.

44. We are further of the view that the law laid down by this Court in P.D. Prabhudesai and Mohd. Israr Siddique did not lay down law correctly for more than one reason. P.D. Prabhudesai proceeded on the basis of so called "admitted position" which is clear from the following statement:

" It also appears to be an admitted position that the Secondary Schools Code does not apply to Polytechnics."

As observed in Abdullah Jameel Ahmed Ansari, the above statement was factually incorrect.

45. Moreover, in P.D. Prabhudesai, the Court referred to the affidavit in reply on behalf of the State that the Government had no intention to apply the provisions of the Act and the Rules to private Polytechnics taking into consideration the difference in the set up in private Polytechnics compared to private primary/secondary schools. A similar stand has been taken in the present petition (Writ Petition No. 137 of 1986). The Director of Technical Education, Mumbai has stated;