: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1926 OF 2002 WRIT PETITION NO.1926 OF 2002 WRIT PETITION NO.1926 OF 2002 Suhrud Mandal, Pune ) A Public Trust registered under the ) Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 ) having his office at 805, Smruti ) Bhandarkar Path, Shivajinagar ) Pune 411 004 through its Secretary ) Mrs.Snehalata Varnekar ).. PETITIONER Versus 1) State of Maharashtra ) Notice to be served on the ) Government Pleader, having his ) office at PWD Buildings ) High Court, Mumbai. ) 2) Social Welfare Development Officer ) Group A, Zilla Parishad, Pune. ) 3) The Divisional Commissioner ) Handicapped Welfare ) Maharashtra State having his office ) at Chruch Road, Pune-1. ) 4) Regional Social Welfare Officer ) Pune Region, Pune. ) 5) Mrs. Manisha Kurale ) residing at Plot No.214 ) Sector No.26, Nigadi Pradhikaran ) Pune 411 044. ).. RESPONDENTS Mr.K.S. Bapat with Mr.T.R. Yadav for the Petitioner. Mr.P.I. Khemani, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. Mr.A.M. Joshi for Respondent No.5. CORAM: V.G. PALSHIKAR, Ag. C.J. AND CORAM: V.G. PALSHIKAR, Ag. C.J. AND CORAM: V.G. PALSHIKAR, Ag. C.J. AND SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. : 2 : DATED: 31ST JANUARY 2006 DATED: 31ST JANUARY 2006 DATED: 31ST JANUARY 2006 ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER MHATRE, J.) ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER MHATRE, J.) ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER MHATRE, J.) . This Petition has been filed by a Public Trust which runs four schools for deaf and dumb students. The Petitioner challenges the order passed by Respondent No.4 directing the Petitioner to reinstate Respondent No.5 in her original post. The main challenge to the order of Respondent No.4 is on the ground that he was not empowered to pass any orders under Rule 55 of the Special Schools Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") governing the service conditions of the teaching and non-teaching staff employed in an institute meant for disabled students. 2. Respondent No.5 was initially appointed in 1998 in one of the Petitioner’s schools after she applied for the post of Instructor "A" in the Petitioner’s technical school pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Petitioner. Although seven or eight other applications were received by the Petitioner, none of them were qualified with a background of Electronics. Since the Petitioner urgently required a teacher in their school, Respondent No.5 was appointed as a probationer on her assurance that she would acquire the necessary qualifications in Electronics. Her appointment was approved by the Director of Social Welfare on the : 3 : condition that the back log of the candidates from the Scheduled Castes be filled in the following year. The appointment of Respondent No.5 was approved for a further period of one year 1999-2000. However, the Petitioner did not find the services of Respondent No.5 to be satisfactory and, therefore, she was terminated from service on 10th April 2000. Soon thereafter, the Petitioner advertised the post again. Accordingly, several candidates applied for the post including Respondent No.5. The Petitioner selected a suitable candidate since he had expertise in the field of Electronics and was also from the Scheduled Caste. In view of the directions issued by the Director of Social Welfare to fill the back log, the Petitioner appointed this candidate. Aggrieved by this decision of the Petitioner not to appoint her, Respondent No.5 lodged a complaint with the Regional Social Welfare Officer, Respondent No.4, challenging the termination of her service on and from 10th April 2000. On 22nd October 2001, Respondent No.4 directed the Petitioner to reinstate Respondent No.5 in her original post despite the Petitioner’s objection to the maintainability of the complaint before Respondent No.4. The Petitioner informed Respondent Nos.2 and 3 that it was not possible to obey the order of Respondent No.4 since it was passed without any jurisdiction. Both the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 directed the Petitioner to obey the orders of : 4 : Respondent No.4. Hence, this Writ Petition. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner rightly pointed out that Respondent No.4 had no authority in law or jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Respondent No.4 has passed the order under Rule 55 of the Code. The power under Rule 55 can be invoked only by the Head or Assistant Head of the Institution. Rule 55 cannot be invoked by any other teacher employed in an Institute for the differently abled persons. A teacher would have no recourse to this Rule. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.5 drew our attention to Rule 66 of the Code. However, this Rule has no application in order to ascertain whether the order passed under Rule 55 is within the powers vested in Respondent No.4. In our opinion, the order of Respondent No.4 is not sustainable as it has been passed without jurisdiction. Consequently, the directions issued by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 also must be set aside. 4. Writ Petition allowed. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (V.G. PALSHIKAR, Ag.C.J.) (V.G. PALSHIKAR, Ag.C.J.) (V.G. PALSHIKAR, Ag.C.J.) : 5 : (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.)