IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1023 OF 2009 Ramrajya Shikshan Sanstha ...Petitioner Vs. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Pune .. Respondent --- Shri P.S. Dani for Petitioner Shri A.P. Vonarase-AGP for Respondent ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 22ND APRIL, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned AGP for the Respondent. 2. Though adequate opportunity was given to the Education Officer to file his reply, no reply has been filed so far. 3. Brief facts are as under: The Petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act and also a trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The Petitioner is challenging the order of injunction dated 10.32008 passed by the Education Officer, whereby the Education Officer has given a direction that the Petitioner Trust should not conduct the day today functioning of the school since it did not appear to be a validly constituted management. 4. The Deputy Charity Commissioner passed an order dated 4.4.2005 under section 50A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act on an application made for settlement of scheme of the Petitioner Trust and pursuant to the said order, a change report has been filed, which is pending for adjudication before the competent authority under the Bombay Public Trust Act. 5. In the meantime, the complaint was filed by one Smt. Bhosale before the Education Officer, in which she claimed that she was not permitted to work, though she was already recognized employee right from the year 2003. A notice to that complaint was issued to the Petitioner Society and, accordingly, the Petitioner Society appeared before the Education Officer. After the said complaint was heard, the Education Officer dismissed the complaint of Smt. Bhosale and held that there was no documentary evidence to indicate that the appointment of Smt. Bhosale was validly made on the post of junior clerk and, therefore, the approval was cancelled. However, in paragraph 2 of the said order, the Education Officer has observed that neither the Petitioner, nor any other trustee of the society had established that they were validly constituted and, therefore, an order of injunction was issued, restraining both the parties from carrying out the day today functioning of the school. 6. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Education Officer has no authority to pass such an order of injunction. He submitted that the said issue was not a subject matter of the dispute which was pending before the Education Officer and, therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside. 7. In my view, it is quite apparent from the impugned order that the said issue was not the subject matter of the dispute which is pending before the Education Officer and neither the MEPS Act nor the Rules or Secondary School Code permits the Education Officer to decide the dispute about the management of the society and, therefore, the said second part of the order is patently without illegal as the Education Officer has no jurisdiction to decide the said issue. Hence, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Rule is made absolute, accordingly. V.M. KANADE J.