Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the communications placed by the petitioner on record clearly show that the State of Maharashtra had decided to transfer the ashram school in favour of the respondent no.3-society due to political pressure and by giving a complete go bye to the provisions of the Ashram School Code. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no provision in the Ashram School Code for transfer of the ashram school from one place to another, except clause 3.41 of the Code and none of the conditions or contingencies, as mentioned in clause 3.41, are attracted in this case so as to effect the transfer of the school from village Kayar in Yavatmal district to village Jebapur in Dhule district. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Government Resolution dated 29.08.2009 directs the absorption of the students and the staff from the ashram school at village Kayar in Yavatmal district to the ashram school at village Jebapur in Dhule district.

It is the case of the petitioner that a new procedure and practice, which is contrary to the Ashram School Code, has been followed by the State of Maharashtra while transferring the ashram school from mouze Kayar to mouze Jebapur, by the Government Resolution dated 29.08.2009.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the information gathered by the petitioner society, it appears that there was no proposal submitted by the respondent no.3 for transfer of the ashram school from mouze Kayar to mouze Jebapur, situated in a different district of the State of Maharashtra. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no reason whatsoever for transferring the ashram school from an extremely under developed region to a comparatively developed region of the State of Maharashtra. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the haste in which the State of Maharashtra granted permission to the respondent no.3 to run the ashram school at village Jebapur, itself shows that the grant of the ashram school to the respondent no.3 is for extraneous reasons. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that village Jebapur, which is situated in Tal. Sakri, District Dhule, does not find place in the Master Plan of the ashram schools. It is lastly submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there are two ashram schools situated within a distance of 12 kilometers from village Jebapur, where the ashram school of village Kayar is being transferred.

7. Mr. A. M. Deshpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2, supported the action of the respondent no.1 and submitted that the ashram school at village Kayar was de-recognized on 01.01.2009 and the appeal against the de-recognition was dismissed on 19.05.2009. It is submitted on behalf of the State that a fresh proposal was then submitted by the petitioner for grant of ashram school at village Kayar, on 27.05.2009. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the State of Maharashtra had independently considered the proposal of the petitioner dated 27.05.2009 and since the petitioner did not have the necessary infrastructure for running the ashram school at village Kayar, Tal. Wani, (presently) Dist. Yavatmal, the proposal of the petitioner was rejected. It is the case of the State of Maharashtra that since the respondent no.3 had the necessary infrastructure at mouze Jebapur and the proposal of the respondent no.3 was found to be in order, the respondent no.3 was rightly granted the permission to run the ashram school at village Jebapur in Dhule district by transferring it from village Kayar. The learned Assistant Government Pleader relied on clause 2.3(6) of the Ashram School Code to canvass that it is necessary for a society to have the land and building of its own or atleast a leased premises for the purpose of running an ashram school. It is submitted on behalf of the State that the proposal of the petitioner shows that the petitioner did not have the land or building as required by clause 2.3(6) of the Code. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 that the ashram school at village Kayar was de-

11. Apart from the fact that the ashram school was transferred from village Kayar to village Jebapur due to political pressure, we find that there is nothing in the Ashram School Code, which authorises the State of Maharashtra to transfer the ashram school from one place to another, except in the contingencies mentioned in clause 3.41 of the Code. It is stated in Clause 3.41 of the Code that except for the reasons mentioned in clause 3.41, an ashram school cannot be transferred from the place where it was originally located. Clause 3.41 of the Code stipulates five contingencies in which the ashram school may be transferred from one place to another and undisputedly, none of these contingencies arise in this case. Hence, the State Government could not have, by the impugned resolution dated 29.08.2009, transferred the ashram school from village Kayar, Tah. Wani, Dist. Yavatmal to village Jebapur, Tah. Sakri, Dist. Dhule. It appears that initially when permission was granted to Pujya Jagannath Baba Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Mukutban to run the ashram school in village Kayar, the relevant taluka in which Kayar was situated was included in the Master Plan. It is clear from the communication issued by the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Nashik to the Commissioner, Tribal Development, Nashik, on 21.08.2009 that village Jebapur, Tah. Sakri in District Dhule is, however, not included in the Master Plan, though it may be falling in the tribal sub-plan.