Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. The provisions of S.S. Code, came up for consideration before Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kobad Jehangir Bharda Vs. Farokh Sidhwa, 1990 (2) Mh L J 883, in which, while considering the nature of Clause 56.6 of S.S. Code, it was held as under :

"The Secondary Schools Code - the Code for brevity - which applies to the School defines a Secondary School as a School which provides a course in general education leading to the Secondary School Certificate examination at the end of Standard X, (Chapter I Definitions- Secondary Schools Code-Revised Edition 1979). The School by definition, is a Secondary School. The School is recognised by the Government. Therefore, the affairs of the School must conform to the Code. (Chapter II Section I-Recognition, Organisation and Management of Schools). Elaborate, nearly exhaustive, provisions in regard to management, admissions and withdrawal of pupils, health of pupils and rules of discipline have been laid down. Different officers like Director of Education, Dy. Director of Education and Education Officer have been designated as Competent/ Appropriate Authority to exercise control over the School and ensure the obedience to the Code. (Appendix Twenty four and clause (15) of the Definitions). We are concerned with Section VIII of Chapter II of the Code titled. "Principles of discipline for pupils" which the School is in law bound to follow.

"We are aware of the fact that in Francis John Francis John v. The Director of Education, the School was recipient of financial aid from the Government. In the case before us, the School does not receive grant from the Government. But this fact does not take away the public law character of the Secondary Schools Code which admittedly governs the School. While the element of financial aid from the public exchequer is absent, there are other determinative factors which make the Secondary Schools Code, what the Supreme Court characterised as "a part of the public law of the land.

18. The position then came up for consideration before the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Shikshan Mandal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2012(2) Mh.L.J.948 where a specific question was framed in this regard as question No.1, which was as under:

"Question No.(I) Do the provisions of the Secondary Schools Code acquire statutory force because of reference made to those provisions in the regulations framed under the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Boards Regulations, the M.E.P.S. Act and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M.G. Pandke Vs. Municipal Council, Hinghanghat, 1992(2) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 1648 = 1993 Supp.(1) SCC

20. In Mahadeo Pandurang More Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2014(5) Mh.L.J. 877 in which one of us (P.R. Bora, J.) was on the Bench, Shikshan Mandal (supra) and the provisions of the S.S. Code were considered in para 29 as under :

"29. Whether State of Maharashtra can regulate service conditions like pay scale or salary of the staff of respondent unaided minority school? Respondent Management itself has relied upon the SOR of MEPS Act. SOR shows need felt by the State Legislature to give statutory basis to various executive orders regulating the service conditions. Hon'ble Apex Court in M.G. Pandke Vs. Municipal Council, Hinganghat, 1992 (2) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 1684 = 1993 Suppl. (1) SCC 708 para7,8 and 13 observes as under :- "Secondary Schools Code not itself statutory but in nature of executive instructions". Full Bench of this Court in 2012 (2) Mh.L.J. (F.B.) 948 = 2012 (3) ALL MR 609 (FB), Shikshan Mandal and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra in paras 3 and 4 has considered this judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court and then in para 5, the affidavit filed by principal secretary of State of Maharashtra which by placing reliance upon the said judgment stated that provisions in Secondary Schools Code have statutory status. In para 6, this Full Bench accepted this position and noted that even according to State of Maharashtra, said provisions have statutory status. In 2009 (5) Mh. L.J. 969 (FB), Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Pune and Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra in paras 9 and 10 has noted that is not a statutory document but it is in the nature of executive directions or guidelines and non-statutory in character".