1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2900 OF 2003 Agrani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal ..Petitioner. Vs. Babasaheb Devappa Chavan and others .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2902 OF 2003 Agrani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal ..Petitioner. Vs. Vijay Vasantrao Patil and others ..Respondents. ..... Mr. T. S. Ingale with Ms. Archana B. Kolagi for the petitioner. Ms. A.P. Bhide for Respondents 1 and 2. Mr. A.P. Vanarase, AGP for Respondent No.3. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 25th April, 2008. P.C. : 1. The management of the Agrani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal of Siddhewadi in the Taluka of Tasgaon of the District of Sangli has instituted a challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution to an order passed by the Grievance committee allowing a plea for the reinstatement of two teachers who were recruited as Shikshan Sevaks and terminated thereafter. 2 2. Two writ petitions have been instituted, each arising out of the appeals which were filed by the two Shikshan Sevaks against orders of termination. 3. The First Respondents to the two petitions are the teachers who have succeeded before the Grievance committee. The First Respondent in Writ Petition 2902 of 2003 was appointed on 13th July, 2001 for a period of three years while the First Respondent in Writ Petition 2900 of 2003 was appointed on 16th July, 2001 for a period of three years. The Education Department had approved an additional division for the 10th standard in the secondary school conducted by the Petitioner and one post of a full time teacher and one post of a part-time teacher was duly approved and sanctioned. Advertisements were issued on 27th June, 2001 for the recruitment of Shikshan Sevaks to the aforesaid posts in terms of a Government Resolution dated 13th October, 2000. Six candidates appeared for the interviews and pursuant to the process of selection, the First Respondents to these proceedings were appointed as Shikshan Sevaks for a period of three years. The President of the Petitioner issued a letter of termination on 20th July, 2001. The termination of the services of 3 the two Shikshan Sevaks came to be impugned in an appeal before the Grievance committee. The Grievance committee came to the conclusion that the First Respondents were recruited in pursuance of an advertisement which was published in the newspapers and after following a regular process of selection in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the rules framed thereunder. The Grievance committee rejected the submission that the Headmaster had misused his powers. On the contrary, the finding of fact which has been arrived at is that the President had no valid reasons to cancel the appointments which were made after following due procedures. The Petitions came to be admitted on 5th November, 2003 when the prayer for interim relief was rejected. It was, however, clarified that the approval that was granted in favour of the Respondent teachers shall abide by the final result of the Petitions. Counsel appearing for the First Respondents has stated before the Court that in pursuance of the interim relief which was granted even during the pendency of the proceedings before the Grievance committee, the First Respondents were reinstated as teachers and they have now been in service continuously until date. 4 4. On behalf of the Petitioners it has been submitted that the appointment of the First Respondents was effected by the Headmaster of the secondary school unauthorizedly and when this fact came to light, a decision was taken by the President to terminate the appointments. Reliance was placed by Counsel appearing for the Petitioner on the reply filed by the Education Officer (Secondary) of the Zilla Parishad, Sangli before the Tribunal where it was submitted that there were two groups in the management and that the permission of the Education Officer was not taken before an advertisement was issued for the recruitment of Shikshan Sevaks. It was urged that the Education Officer has adopted the same position in the reply filed in these proceedings. Finally, an attempt was made to urge that the appointments that were issued to the First Respondents were not valid since they were appointed on the basis that the posts were open posts. 5. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the First Respondents has supported the reasoning of the Grievance committee and has relied upon the documentary material which is adverted to in the order of the committee to sustain the finding that 5 the appointments were made in the present case after following due and requisite procedures. Learned counsel submitted that neither the Education Officer nor the management had at any stage adopted the position before the Grievance committee that the posts against which the First Respondents were appointed were reserved posts and the submission which was now made by the management before the Court is an afterthought to somehow defeat the vested right of the First Respondents. 6. Rule 9(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981 provides that appointments of teaching staff (other than the Head and Assistant Head) and those of the non- teaching staff in a school shall be made by the School Committee. Schedule A provides for the constitution of a School Committee. Clause 3 of Schedule A defines the functions of the School Committee, one of those functions being the appointment of employees (other than the Head of the school). In the present case, on 30th May, 1999 a meeting was held of the General body and by a resolution passed at the meeting the School Committee came to be constituted. The Headmaster is an ex officio secretary of the School Committee. On 8th April, 2001 the School Committee 6 held a meeting at which a resolution was passed recording that for the academic year 2000-01 an additional division for the 10th standard had been sanctioned by the Department for which 'one and a half posts' (one full time post and one part-time post) were approved. The school committee resolved at the meeting to issue an advertisement for recruitment. On 20th May, 2001 a further meeting took place of the school committee. An advertisement was issued in 'Tarun Bharat' on 27th June, 2001 by which applications were invited for filling up one full time post of Shikshan Sevak and one part-time post. Intimation was furnished to the School Committee of interviews which were to take place on 10th July, 2001. On 10th July, 2001 six candidates appeared before the School Committee for interviews. The School Committee by its resolution resolved to appoint the First Respondent in Writ Petition 2902 of 2003 to the full time post and the First Respondent in Writ Petition 2900 of 2003 to the part time post. Accordingly appointments were issued to the two teachers. Having regard to this background, the Grievance committee was absolutely correct in arriving at the conclusion that the appointments were made after following due and requisite procedures and could not be faulted. The President who was a member of the School Committee was a 7 party to the original resolution constituting the School Committee as well as the resolution of the School Committee to invite advertisements. He, however, declined thereafter to participate any further in the process. The outcome of the process cannot be faulted when a resolution was duly passed by the School Committee to appoint the First Respondents to the two petitions. 7. The contention that the posts were reserved has now been urged as a belated afterthought. With the assistance of the learned counsel, the Court has had the benefit of perusing the reply filed by the Education Officer before the Grievance committee, as well as the written statement filed on behalf of the Petitioner. Significantly, the Petitioner has not urged before the Grievance committee any submission to the effect that the posts to which the First Respondents were appointed were reserved. Nor, for that matter, was this the submission of the Education Officer in the reply filed before the School Committee. Under Rule 9 (8) procedure has been laid down for the purpose of filling up vacancies which are reserved under sub-rule (7). In the present case even in the affidavit which has been filed before this Court by the Education Officer it has not been stated that the posts against 8 which the First Respondents were appointed were reserved. 8. The First Respondents, the Court has been informed, have satisfactorily rendered service and during the course of these proceedings, it has been fairly stated on behalf of the Petitioner that there is absolutely no complaint in regard to the performance of the First Respondents. It is an admitted position that both the teachers are duly qualified, one of them being B.A. and B. Ed. and the second B. Sc. and B. Ed. Both of them have been appointed against posts which are approved and sanctioned. The consequences which follow as a result of the amendments brought about to the M.E.P.S. Act by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation (Amendment) Act 2007 have been elucidated in the judgment of the Full Bench in Ram Avadh Mahel Pal v. Shivdutta Educational Trust1. By and as a result of the amendments, statutory force has now been imparted to the Shikshan Sevak scheme which was propounded by the Government Resolution dated 13th October, 2000. The order passed by the Grievance committee on the two appeals therefore does not warrant interference in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. The Petitions shall accordingly stand 1 2007(6) Mh.L.J. 659. 9 dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. *****