vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2399 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2399 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2399 OF 2008 The Secretary Shri Shahu Chh. Apang Kalyan Sanstha Kagal & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. Baliram Baburao Nagrale ... Respondent Mr.Satyajeet M. Mirajkar for Petitioners Mr.Kishor Patil for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 25, 2008 SEPTEMBER 25, 2008 SEPTEMBER 25, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. The petition challenges the order passed on 3.3.2008 by the School Tribunal deciding that it has jurisdiction to try the appeal filed by Respondent No.1. Admittedly, the School in which the Respondent No.1 was teaching is an institution for the hearing impaired and for physically challenged persons. Aggrieved by the decision of the petitioners to terminate his services, the respondent has approached the School Tribunal under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. 3. The School Tribunal has followed the decision of this Court in Vasantrao Naik Education Society v/s. : 2 : Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad & anr, 2000(4) Bom.CR 773. 2000(4) Bom.CR 773. 2000(4) Bom.CR 773. 4. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Suryakant Sheshrao Panchal v/s. Vasant Naik Vimukta Jati, 2002 (3) Mh.L.J. 659 2002 (3) Mh.L.J. 659 2002 (3) Mh.L.J. 659 has held that the MEPS Act does not apply to the Ashram schools or the schools for the blind because these are not the schools which are not recognised by the authorities contemplated under the MEPS Act. In the case of St.Francis Industrial Training Institute & ors. v/s. P.J. Jose & Ors., 2007(1) 2007(1) 2007(1) Mh.L.J. 570, Mh.L.J. 570, Mh.L.J. 570, a learned Single Judge of this Court has observed that the statute applies to private schools which fulfill the definition of the expression ’private schools’ contained under the Act. Unless a person is an employee of a private school as defined under the Act, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction. A similar view has been taken by another learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Narsinghrao Shivaji Dharmaji Industrial Home for the Blind v/s. Suresh Dattatray Kulkarni & Ors., 2007(1) Mh.L.J. 129 2007(1) Mh.L.J. 129 2007(1) Mh.L.J. 129. Thus, the judgment in the case of Vasantrao Naik Education Society, through its Secretary v/s. The Presiding Officer & anr. (supra) has in terms been overruled because of the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Suryakant Sheshrao Panchal v/s. Vasant Naik Vimukta Jati (supra). : 3 : 5. In my view, the Tribunal has committed an error in concluding that the appeal is maintainable and that it has jurisdiction to try the appeal. The school is recognised by the Social Welfare Department and not by the State Board or the Director of Education or any of the other Boards mentioned in section 2(25). Thus, it does not fulfil the criteria for being a private school as defined under section 2(20) of the MEPS Act. An employee of such a school cannot take recourse to the proceedings of the MEPS Act for redressal of his grievance. 6. The petition succeeds. The order of the School Tribunal is set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.