: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.690 OF 2010 Chandrakant Gopalrao Ranaware .. Petitioner V/s. Nimsakhar Education Society & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. S.P. Kadam for the Petitioner. Mr. K.S. Patil for Respondent No.1. Mr. P.I. Khemani, AGP, for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 24 TH JUNE, 2010. P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. 2. The Writ Petition arises from the dismissal of the Appeal filed by the petitioner, by the School Tribunal, Pune, on 25th September, 2009. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a ‘Shikshan Sevak’ in a Secondary School. It appears that his services were not approved by the Education Officer and, therefore, his services were terminated by the Management of the respondent No.1-School on 1st : 2 : August, 2003. Being aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner approached the One Member Grievance Committee. It appears that thereafter the petitioner filed an application seeking liberty to withdraw the proceedings and to file the Appeal before the School Tribunal in view of certain judgments delivered by this Court. Accordingly on 19th June, 2009, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the Appeal and to prefer an Appeal under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation (Amendment) Act, 2007, (for short “the MEPS Act”), before the School Tribunal. The petitioner then preferred an Appeal on 14th July, 2009 before the School Tribunal, Pune. The School Tribunal has dismissed the Appeal on the ground that it was not maintainable as the delay was not satisfactorily explained. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. The School Tribunal has held that the One Member Grievance Committee was the proper forum for agitating the grievance of the petitioner and that the School Tribunal has no jurisdiction to : 3 : entertain the Appeal. The School Tribunal drew this conclusion on the basis that the amendment to the MEPS Act came into force in 2007, making the Act applicable to Shikshan Sevaks. The School Tribunal further held that the petitioner had not explained the delay in approaching the School Tribunal. 5. In the case of The President/Secretary, Shivdatt Education Trust & Anr. vs. Ramlochan, reported in 2008 (4) ALL MR 889, a learned Single Judge of this Court (Dharmadhikari, J.) has held that in view of the Government Resolution/Gazette Notification of 15th February, 2007 and an earlier Government Resolution of 13th October, 2000, Shikshan Sevaks fall within the ambit of the MEPS Act. It has further been held that on completion of the tenure of three years on probation as ‘Shikshan Sevak’, a probationer would be deemed to have been appointed and confirmed as an ‘Assistant Teacher’. The learned Single Judge has observed that although the Shikshan Sevak was appointed prior to the date of the aforesaid Government Resolutions, he would still be permitted to approach the School Tribunal under the MEPS Act for redressal of his grievance. : 4 : 6. In the case of Principal-Our Lady of Salvation High School vs. Rashmi Upadhyay & Ors. in Writ Petition No.8313 of 2008 decided on 19 th December, 2008, another learned Single Judge of this Court (Chandrachud, J.) while considering the aforesaid judgment, has concurred with the view taken in the earlier matter. The Court has observed that the School Tribunal would be the proper forum for redressal of any grievance of a ‘Shikshan Sevak’ as Shikshan Sevaks have been brought within the purview of the statutory protection afforded by the MEPS Act. The Court has further observed that the jurisdiction of the Grievance Committee is denuded to the extent that the School Tribunal is empowered to deal with the disputes regarding termination, dismissal, removal, reduction in rank and supersession with respect to Shikshan Sevaks. 7. Therefore, the finding of the School Tribunal that the Grievance Committee would have jurisdiction to entertain any disputes with respect to termination of services of the Shikshan Sevak is incorrect. Assuming that the Shikshan Sevak was appointed prior to the amendment of the MEPS Act, : 5 : in my opinion, the School Tribunal has incorrectly held that such a Shikshan Sevak would not be entitled to the relief under the MEPS Act by approaching the School Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. 8. The petitioner has satisfactorily explained the delay caused in approaching the School Tribunal. The delay has occurred because the petitioner had approached the One Member Grievance Committee. He, therefore, could not have approached the School Tribunal within the period of limitation. In my view, therefore, the delay ought to have been condoned by the School Tribunal. 9. The Judgment and Order dated 25th September, 2009, passed by the School Tribunal, Pune, in M.C.A. No.19 of 2009, is therefore set aside. The Appeal is remanded for the School Tribunal to hear the same on merits. 10. Rule made absolute. No orders as to costs.