1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 277/2004 Deorao Baburao Hutade and others .. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Ors ..RESPONDENTS .... Shri A.S.Deshmukh,Advocate for petitioners Shri V.H.Dighe,A.G.P. for Respondents 1 to 3. Shri V.S.Panpatte,Adv.for Respondent no.4 Shri S.P.Deshmukh,Adv.for Respondent no.6. .... CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 12/04/2010 ORAL ORDER : [PER PATIL,J.] 1] Heard. 2] This petition is pending for admission since the year 2004. 2 Out of 3 petitioners who were said to be working as Assistant Teachers in respondent no.5 school, petitioner nos.1 and 3, according to the counsel for petitioners, have retired on their attaining age of superannuation. The petitioners seek following substantive reliefs as framed in prayer clauses B and C of the Petition : B] By writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction in like nature respondent no.1 to 4 be directed to hold an enquiry and be further directed to appoint administrator to look after the affairs of the respondent no.5 school. C] By writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction in like nature the respondents be directed to pay salary of petitioners from January 2002 to till date.” 3] The learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioners were appointed on different dates by the management. The petitioner no.2 Smt.Shanta Bedre was appointed in the year 1999 as Assistant Teacher. Upto year 2001 she received salary. Thereafter, Administrator was appointed from 8/3/2006. The counsel for petitioners has invited our attention to orders passed by this Court on 8/2/2006 and 22/2/2006 and a communication 3 made by the Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Nanded dated 19/4/2001 addressed to the Head Master of the School and communication dated 30-4-2002 / 2-5-2002 addressed by the Education Officer to the petitioners. The counsel has further referred to a fact finding report submitted by the Deputy Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur, consequent to the order passed by this Court dated 3/7/2009. The counsel submits that the petitioners 1 and 3 have retired. Petitioner no.2 is still in service, she is not allowed to discharge duties. Petitioner no.2 Smt.Shanta Bedre has not been paid salary and therefore, necessary directions be issued to the management and the authorities, to pay salary and in the light of the fact that the school is badly managed, Administrator is required to be appointed. 4] Learned counsel Shri S.P.Deshmukh for the management submits that petitioner no.1 was closely related to the respondent Sham Baburao Nilangekar who claims to be President now of the society which is running the school known as Indira Gandhi Vidyalaya. The learned counsel submitted that petitioner no.1 took disadvantage of the fact that Shri Sham Nilangekar was too young to handle the affairs of the management and in that situation appointed certain persons in the employment and practically run the affairs of the school as he desired. As Shri Sham Nilangekar grew, he started asserting his rights and therefore, rift was visible between him and the petitioner no.1. The school viz. Indira Gandhi Vidyalaya is run in slum area known as Lalbaugh area of Nanded town. Shri Deshmukh, 4 learned counsel submits that as on today, management of the school is with Sham Nilangekar. There are 110 students. According to the counsel, one approved teacher is working and 2 honorary teachers are discharging their duties. The school gets grant-in-aid. The counsel further submits that the management want to assure that the school would be run strictly in accordance with law and in the best interest of the students. Some communications are placed on record indicating that the Education Officer (Primary) had recommended to cancel the appointment of Administrator and to hand over the management back to the persons concerned. 5] Shri Panpatte, learned counsel appearing for Zilla Parishad submits that the petitioners have misinterpreted communications made by the Education Officer, which are annexed at Exhs.”H” and “N” to the Petition. The counsel placed reliance on the report of the Deputy Director of Education. It was submitted that the petitioner no.2 failed to resort to appropriate alternate statutory remedies available to her at the given time. The communication on which the petitioners are placing reliance, would not confer any approval on the petitioners and right to receive salary. The counsel submits that the Education Officer (Primary) would conduct a fresh inspection of the School and submit fact finding report to the concerned committee of Zilla Parishad. The counsel assures that the Education Officer was taking every possible steps in respect of running of the school, strictly in accordance with law. If it is found that the governance of the school has been 5 seriously affected and the management is not running school in the interest of the students, then necessary steps would be taken by the authorities. 6] We have perused the orders passed by this Court from time to time. We find that the report submitted by Deputy Director consequent upon order of this Court dated 3/7/2009 is a balanced fact finding report. We do not find any difficulty in placing reliance on the said report. Certain disputed questions of facts are raised by contesting parties, which we do not find it necessary to address in the proceedings of this Petition. The Deputy Director had in clear words observed that the petitioner who had worked till 2000-2001 and had received salary upto December 2001, could have approached the School Tribunal in case she had grievance that she was not allowed to discharge duties as Assistant Teacher. We find that the issue about absorption raised by the petitioner is misplaced one. 7] In the light of the fact that the petitioner did not approach the Tribunal at a given point of time and in view of the record placed before us, we find that the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted. It is a fact that Administrator was governing affairs of the school for a considerable period. 8] We direct the Education Officer (Primary) to strictly monitor the functioning of the school and if he notices that the management running the school, is not acting in the interest of 6 education of the students, then appropriate strict action shall be taken. 9] For the reasons stated above, we find that the Petition is required to be disposed of. Petition is disposed of accordingly. [N.D.DESHPANDE,J.] [NARESH H.PATIL,J.] umg/wp277-07