MP 1 CRA898_10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 898 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 473 OF 2010 The Chairman, Natepute Education Society and others ... Applicants Versus Smt. Amina Babasaheb Kazi and others ... Respondents Mr. Rupesh Bobade for Applicants. Ms. Usha Shrivastava a/w. Mr. Satish S. Raut for Respondent No. 1. Mrs. S. V. Sonawane, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 06, 2011 P. C. : By way of civil revision application, the applicants challenge the order dated 10th July 2009 vide which the preliminary issue, framed at the instance of the petitioners “whether this court has jurisdiction to try the suit?”, has been answered in the affirmative. 2. The respondent No. 1 has filed the suit for a declaration that she has become a permanent teacher in the petitioner No. 3 school run by petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. In the said suit, an application for framing the preliminary issue came to be filed by the present petitioners. The aforesaid issue was framed and decided by the learned Trial Court holding that the court has the jurisdiction. Being aggrieved thereby, the present revision application. MP 2 CRA898_10 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the provisions of Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditional of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 (“MEPS Act” for short), the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. 4. For deciding the question as to whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit or not, only the averments made in the plaint can be gone into. Perusal of Section 9 of the MEPS Act would reveal that the tribunal constituted under the MEPS Act would have jurisdiction only to entertain the matter relating only to (1) Dismissal, (2) Removal, (3) Termination otherwise, (4) Reduction in rank and (5) Supersession in promotion. It is a settled law that if the jurisdiction of the tribunal is restricted to the matters which are covered u/s. 9 of the MEPS Act, in respect of the matters which are not covered u/s. 9 of the MEPS Act, the civil court will undoubtedly have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. From the perusal of the plaint, it cannot be said that the plaintiff claims any relief, which is referable to Section 9 of the MEPS Act. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction exercised by the learned Trial Court has been exercised with material irregularity to warrant interference. Hence rejected. 5. In view of the disposal of the revision application, nothing survives in the civil application. The same is also disposed of accordingly. (B.R. GAVAI, J)