1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 483 OF 2005 1. Parivartan Vidya Prasarak Sanstha Through its Secretary Shri Ramkrishna Devram Khanale, Age 36 years, Occ. Secretary, R/o. Shrikirshna STD Centre, Opp. Phule Colony, Kalamandir Road, Dhule, District Dhule 2. Head Master, Primary Ashram School, Sindhkheda, Tal. Sindkheda, Dist. Dhule Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai (Copy to be served on Government Pleader, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. Regional Social Welfare Officer, Nashik Division, Nashik 3. Special District Social Welfare Officer, Dhule, District Dhule 4. Dilip Maharu Chavan, Age 30 years, occ. Nil, R/o. Nhanbhau Wada, Ta. Sindkheda, Dist. Dhule ...Respondents 2 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 893 OF 2005 1. Parivartan Vidya Prasarak Sanstha Through its Secretary Shri Ramkrishna Devram Khanale, Age 36 years, Occ. Secretary, R/o. Shrikirshna STD Centre, Opp. Phule Colony, Kalamandir Road, Dhule, District Dhule 2. Head Master, Primary Ashram School, Sindhkheda, Tal. Sindkheda, Dist. Dhule Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai (Copy to be served on Government Pleader, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. Regional Social Welfare Officer, Nashik Division, Nashik 3. Special District Social Welfare Officer, Dhule, District Dhule 4. Balkrishna Raghunath Jadhav, Age 35 years, occ. Nil, R/o. Bhatpura, Ta. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule ...Respondents ..... Mr. P.M. Shah, senior counsel h/f Mr. A.S. Sawant, advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.N. Kendre, AGP for respondents-State authorities Mr. P.S. Gaikwad, advocate for R. No.4 in both petitions ..... 3 CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE OF RESERVATION : 14.10.2009 OF JUDGMENT DATE OF PRONOUCNEMENT : 16.10.2009 OF JUDGMENT JUDGMENT:- 1 Both these writ petitions are filed challenging the order dated 14.5.2004 passed by the Regional Social Welfare Officer, Nashik Division, Nashik in appeal No. 4 of 2003 and in appeal No. 3 of 2003. 2. It is not necessary to go into the details of the facts, since the preliminary objection is raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Regional Social Welfare Officer, Nashik on the date, on which the appeals were decided, had no jurisdiction to entertain the said appeals. He further submitted that said Officer on 14.5.2004 heard the appeals on assumption that he had jurisdiction to entertain the said appeals. In fact according to the learned senior counsel, there is no any specific provision provided by the legislature for filing appeal before the Social Welfare Officer, therefore, in absence of any provisions, the order dated 14.5.2004 passed by the Social Welfare Officer entertaining the appeals filed by the respondents is without jurisdiction. 4 Learned counsel has invited my attention to the reported judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (deceased) through L.Rs. Vs. Jasjit Singh and others, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 507 and submitted that the jurisdiction can be exercised only when provided for either in the constitution or in the law made by the legislature. Jurisdiction is thus the authority or power of the court to deal with a matter and make an order carrying binding force in the facts. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that the Social Welfare Officer had no jurisdiction on the date on which the impugned judgment and order was passed in appeals filed by respondent Nos. 4 in both the writ petitions. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that on this ground alone the petitioners deserve to be allowed. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 and learned AGP jointly submitted that by way of written communication dated 20.1.2003 sent to the Assistant Government Pleader, High Court, Appellate Side Mumbai, by the Under Secretary, Department of Social Welfare Cultural Affairs, Sports Mantralaya Mumbai, it has been communicated that, it is under consideration of the State Government to formulate policy for providing the appropriate remedy to the employees working in Ashram Schools and till that time the Social Welfare Officer is empowered to hear and decide the appeals. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that when the department 5 has taken a decision to provide the remedy of appeal to be filed before the Social Welfare Officer, it cannot be said that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Social Welfare Officer is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel further invited my attention to the G.R. dated 18.6.2005 issued by the Government by which the jurisdiction is vested in the Social Welfare Officer to hear the appeals filed by the Teachers working in Ashram Schools and other employees and to take decision thereon. Learned counsel would submit that the Social Welfare Officer had jurisdiction to hear and decide the appeal on the date on which same was finally decided. 4 After hearing learned senior counsel for the petitioners, learned AGP for respondent State authorities and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 in both the writ petitions, I am of the considered view that mere letter written by the concerned department to the learned AGP communicating therein that the government has taken decision to provide remedy of appeal with the Social Welfare Officer for teaching and non teaching staff working in Ashram Schools, cannot be basis to vest jurisdiction in the social welfare Officer. The G.R. is issued on 18.6.2005. However, the impugned judgment and order is passed on 14.5.2004 itself, therefore, by any stretch of imagination on the basis of the said G.R. issued on 18.6.2005, the 6 Social Welfare Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the respondent No.4 herein. While entertaining the appeals filed by respondent No.4, the Social Welfare Officer Nashik in para 1 of the impugned judgment has referred to the letter dated 20.1.2003 written by the Director, Social Welfare Department and also communication dated 29.1.2003 in writ petition No. 4178 of 1999 that the Social Welfare Officer has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Therefore the Social Welfare Officer in para 1 observed that he had jurisdiction to entertain the appeals. In fact said letter cannot be construed as remedy provided provided by the legislature. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (supra) the jurisdiction can be exercised only when the provided for either in the Constitution or in the last made by the legislature. Therefore, in the instant case, the Social Welfare Officer had assumed jurisdiction merely on the basis of the written communication by Social Welfare Officer and by the concern department to the AGP that till the date policy is framed about providing remedy of appeal to the teaching and non teaching staff of Ashram Schools, Social Welfare Officer will have jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the appeal. Therefore, there is no any provision provided by the legislature for filing appeal before the Social 7 Welfare Officer on the relevant date and in absence of any specific provision in that regard the Social Welfare Officer had entertained and allowed the appeal. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Social Welfare is without jurisdiction as on the date on which the impugned judgment and order was passed, the Social Welfare Officer had no jurisdiction to her and dispose of the appeal. Even it is assumed for a moment that Government has issued G.R. vesting jurisdiction in the Social Welfare Officer, that G.R. Is issued in 2005 i.e. after decision taken by the Social Welfare Officer in the appeals filed by respondent No.4. 5 Therefore, for all these reasons the impugned judgment and order dated 14.5.2004 passed by the Regional Social Welfare Officer, Nashik Division, Nashik in appeal No. 4 of 2003 and in appeal No. 3 of 2003 is without jurisdiction and therefore, the same is quashed and set aside. It will be open for the respondent No.4 in both the petitions, if he is so advised to take appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the concerned court or the authority, as the case may be, will keep in mind the provisions of Section 14 of Limitation Act while entertaining the proceeding, which may be filed by respondent No.4. 6. In the result, writ petitions are allowed. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause “A”. The order of interim relief if any stands 8 merged in the final relief. 7. In view of disposal of writ petitions, civil application No. 6963 of 2006 pending in writ petition No. 483 of 2005, stands disposed of. *****