Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. There is no dispute on the point that the school run by the petitioner No. 1 is an Ashram School constituted in terms of various Government Resolutions issued by the Government of Maharashtra in the interest of imparting education to the people living in Adivasi areas. This is also apparent from the resolution dated 2nd June, 1973, the first para of which reads thus :

"RESOLUTION.---In order to provide educational facilities of Secondary Education to the public in Adivasi areas, Government has sanctioned a scheme of upgrading existing full-fledged Ashram Schools into Post Basic Ashram Schools in Adivasi areas under Government Resolution Education and Social Welfare Department, No. SSN 1067/E, dated 3rd January, 1968. Accordingly upto the end of academic year 1972-73 permission was granted for the upgradation of 16 (sixteen only) Ashram Schools into Post Basic Ashram Schools, Government is now pleased to sanction the upgradation of 19 full-fledged Ashram Schools, as per statement appended to this Government Resolution, into Post Basic Ashram Schools with the permission to open Std. VIIIth during the academic year 1973-74 (i.e. w.e.f.) June 1973."

6. The expression "school" as defined under section 2(24) of the said Act means the primary school, secondary school, higher secondary school, junior college of the education or any other institution by whatever name called including technical, vocational, or art institution or part of any such school, college, or institution, which imparts general, technical, vocational, art or, as the case may be, special education or training in any faculty or discipline or subject below the degree level. Bare reading of the definition of the term "school" would undoubtedly include almost all types of institutions which impart education either of primary or secondary level or at higher secondary or junior college level. However, the point which arises for consideration in the matter is whether an employee in an Ashram School can claim benefit of the provisions of law contained in the said Act solely on the basis of the said definition under section 2(24) of the said Act. The expression "existing private school" has been defined under section 2(8) to mean a recognised private school which is in existence on the appointed date. The expression "private school" is defined under section 2(20) to mean the recognized school established or administered by a management, other than the Government or a local authority. The expression "recognised" has also been defined under section 2(21) of the said Act to mean recognised by the Director, the Divisional Board or the State Board, or by any officer authorised by him or by any of such Boards. Apparently, therefore, the recognised schools which area defined as private schools under section 2(20) are necessarily to be recognised by the Director, the Divisional Board or the State Board, or by any officer authorised by him or by any of such Boards. In the absence of recognition by the authorities referred to in section 2(21) of the said Act, it cannot be said that the school is a recognised school within the meaning of expression "private school" under section 2(20) of the said Act. The recognizing authorities mentioned in section 2(21) are also sufficiently identified under the said Act. Accordingly, the expression "Director" is defined under section 2(6) to mean the Director of Education or the Director of Technical Education or the Director of Vocational Education and Training or the Director of Art, as the case may be, appointed as such by the State Government. The expression "Divisional Board" has been defined under section 2(6-A) to mean the Divisional Board established under Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board Act, 1965. The expression "State Board" under section 2(25) means (a) The Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education established under Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board Act, 1965; (b) The Board of Technical Examinations, Maharashtra State; (c) The Maharashtra State Board of Vocational Examinations; or (d) The Art Examinations Committee. The term "employer" is defined under section 2(7) to mean any member of the teaching and non-teaching staff of a recognised school.

10. Undisputedly, none of the authorities mentioned in the said Act as being the authorities to grant approval and recognition to a school had granted recognition to the Ashram school in question. On the contrary, the Government of Maharashtra has chosen to exclude the Ashram Schools from the ambit of the said Act and the Rules pertaining to the management of such Ashram Schools as well as the service conditions therein are being governed by separate Government Resolutions in that regard. Besides, the provisions contained in the said Act when specifically restricts its applicability to the private schools as defined under section 2(20) to be read along with other relevant provisions in the said Act, the applicability of the said Act cannot be extended to the private schools which are not covered by the definition of the said expression under the said Act. The law laid down by the learned Single Judge in Vasantrao Naik Education Society's case cannot be held to be a binding law in view of the decision of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 2919/1991 delivered on 18th September, 1991.

11. Considering the fact that the respondent No. 1 herein was the employee of Ashram School to which the provisions of the said Act are not applicable, the appeal filed under section 9 of the said Act before the School Tribunal, was not maintainable as the School Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners in that regard are to be upheld and on that count alone, the impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set aside. This however, may not preclude the respondent No. 1, if so desires, to approach the competent authorities as undisputedly, in terms of various Government Resolutions issued in relation to Ashram Schools, the appellate remedy is provided thereunder to such employees. Needless to say, that if the respondent No. 1 accordingly approaches the competent appellate authorities, the same will have to consider the fact that the respondent No. 1 was pursuing the writ remedy under the said Act till this date and, therefore, benefit claimed, if any, for exemption of period spent in pursuing such writ remedy will have to be sympathetically considered.