WP/255/2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.255 OF 2002 ALONG WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.111 OF 2006 Girish B. Rai ... Petitioner V/s. Kalindi K. Rai & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. A.L. Gore for the Petitioner. Mr. M.S. Lagu for Respondent No.1. Mr. A.G. Kothari for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr. S.N. Bhosle, AGP, for Respondent No.4. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 10 TH JANUARY, 2011. ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 29th December, 2001 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Thane in Appeal No.96 of 2000. The School Tribunal has allowed the Appeal filed by respondent No.1 and has set aside the order of demotion issued to her on 30th September, 2000. 2. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.1 was appointed to the respondent No.3-School only in June, 1998. She acquired her B.Ed. qualifications after completion of the academic year 1998-99. The petitioner contends that the appointment of respondent No.1 as an “Assistant Teacher” was approved w.e.f. WP/255/2002 2 30th September, 2000 and she was thereafter appointed as “Head Mistress” on 3rd January, 2001. The petitioner claims that he was appointed as “Head Master” on 12th October, 1999 as he was senior to respondent No.1. According to the petitioner, even after the order was passed by the School Tribunal on 21st September, 2000, he did not hand over charge to respondent No.1 at any point of time. 3. These facts are disputed by the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. They contend that respondent No.1 was appointed to the School in 1993 as an “Assistant Teacher”. She was then promoted as the “Head Mistress” of the School on 1st July, 1994. She was demoted to the post of “Assistant Teacher” on 3rd September, 2000. She challenged that order by filing the present Appeal No.96 of 2000 before the School Tribunal. A stay order was granted by the School Tribunal on 21st October, 2000, due to which she continued functioning as the “Head Mistress” of the School. Approval to her appointment as a “Head Mistress” was accorded in 2001. 4. The petitioner, though not a party to the Appeal before the School Tribunal, was impleaded after the stay order was passed on 21st October, 2000. He contends that he was functioning as the “Head Master” of the School from 12th October, 1999 and the respondent No.1 had been appointed illegally as the “Head Mistress” of the School, without considering the fact that she was not qualified and was junior to him in the School. WP/255/2002 3 5. By the impugned oder dated 29th December, 2001, the School Tribunal has accepted the contentions of the respondent No.1 and allowed her Appeal. It has held that the order of demotion dated 30th September, 2000 was illegal and has, therefore, quashed and set it aside. 6. It is submitted by Mr. Gore, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, that respondent No.1 has illegally been appointed as “Head Mistress”. He contends that the respondent No.3 is not a minority institution. According to him, there is no certificate indicating that the School is a minority institution- either a linguistic or a religious minority. He, therefore, submits that the rigours of Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act cannot be relaxed. He further submits that when the respondent No.1 was appointed as “Head Mistress”, she did not possess the B.Ed. qualifications and, therefore, her contention that she was the “Head Mistress” in 1994 cannot be accepted. The learned Advocate further submits that there was no material on record before the School Tribunal to indicate that any proposal had been made by the institution for relaxation of the requisite qualifications while appointing the respondent No.1 as “Head Mistress” of the School. He points out that the petitioner, in fact, was acting as the “Head Master” on and from 23rd January, 2002 and, therefore, the Tribunal’s order accepting the case of respondent No.1 is illegal. He further submits that respondent Nos.1 and 2, in collusion, have fabricated documents including the demotion letter dated 30th WP/255/2002 4 September, 2000 only in order to ensure that respondent No.1 continues as the “Head Mistress”. 7. The impugned order of the School Tribunal contains scathing criticism of the conduct of the petitioner. The School Tribunal has found that in fact it was the petitioner who had fabricated certain documents in collusion with the Education Officer in order to ensure that approval was granted to his appointment as “Head Master” on 7th July, 2000. A resolution has been passed within three days cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as a “Head Master”. Surprisingly, the petitioner has taken no steps to challenge that order till today. Therefore, even assuming the petitioner is right in his contentions that the order of the School Tribunal is incorrect, he would still not be entitled to the post of “Head Master” as he has not challenged the order dated 10th July, 2000 for approximately 11 years. 8. The petitioner’s contention that he was appointed as a “Head Master” in 1999 has not been substantiated by him at all, nor has he brought any material on record to indicate that he was functioning as the “in-charge Head Master” from 1996. In fact, it appears that criminal proceedings have been initiated by respondent No.2-Institution against both the petitioner as well as the Education Officer for fabricating certain documents which indicate that the petitioner had been appointed as a “Head Master” and that his appointment was approved. WP/255/2002 5 9. The contention of the petitioner that there was no material on record nor a certificate produced to indicate that the institution was a minority institution is not correct. The institution had produced the letter from the Education Officer which relaxed the necessary qualifications for appointing the respondent No.1 to the School as the “Head Mistress” before the School Tribunal. This letter has been accepted by the Tribunal and it has held that the respondent No.2 is a linguistic minority institution. 10. The petitioner, it appears, desires to challenge through this Petition the appointment of the respondent No.1 as the “Head Mistress” of the School. He contends that respondent No.1 could not have been appointed as the “Head Mistress” in 1994, as pleaded by her, as in fact at that point of time she was working in another School. 11. Mr. Lagu, the learned Advocate for respondent No.1, submits that the petitioner should not be permitted to reopen the issue as to whether the respondent No.1 was correctly appointed in 1994 as a “Head Mistress”. He submits that the petitioner had taken no objection to her appointment in 1994 and, therefore, he cannot reopen this issue. According to Mr. Lagu, no substantive proceedings have been filed by the petitioner against the appointment of the respondent No.1 till today. WP/255/2002 6 12. In my opinion, the petitioner cannot challenge the appointment of the respondent No.1 as a “Head Mistress” in the present Writ Petition. The issue before the School Tribunal was limited to whether the demotion order passed against the respondent No.1 was correct. The School Tribunal has answered this issue and has found that the demotion order was illegally passed. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot challenge the appointment of respondent No. 1 as a “Head Mistress” in the present Petition. In fact, there is no such prayer in the Petition and, therefore, the arguments advanced by Mr. Gore, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, on this issue cannot be considered. 13. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, there is no need to interfere with the order dated 29th December, 2001 passed by the Presiding Officer, Additional School Tribunal, Thane in Appeal No. 96 of 2000 14. The Writ Petition is dismissed. 15. Rule discharged. 16. In view of the above, the Contempt Petition No.111 of 2006 pending in this Writ Petition does not survive and the same is dismissed as infructuous.