1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12587 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1860 OF 2009 St.Xaviers Education Trust Registered Office at : 15:16 Sneha Sadan road, Nagar Road No.10, Daulat Nagar, Borivali (W) Mumbai-400 066 and another ...APPLICANTS. VERSUS 1) The Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and others. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4000 OF 2008 Vilas S/o Kishanrao Wahule, R.o House No. 5017-33-P,Sansar Nagar,Kranti Chowk Police Station Road,Aurangabad. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, School and Education Department, Mantralaya,Mumbai 400 032, and others ...RESPONDENTS. 2 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4001 OF 2008 Ravikant S/o Lawrance Arsud, R/o Deepak Niwas, Shantipura, Chawani,Aurangabad. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, School and Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032, and others ...RESPONDENTS. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4002 OF 2008 Umesh S/o Shriram Medhe, R/o-15 Jaivishwabharti Colony, Siddhivinayak Apartment, Aurangabad. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, School and Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032, and others ...RESPONDENTS. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4003 OF 2008 Balwant S/o Uttamrao Thokre, R/o -Plot No. 15,C/o Pinglikar, Venkatesh Colony,Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS 3 1) The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, School and Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032, and others ...RESPONDENTS. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4004 OF 2008 Syed Zahir Abdul Khaliique, R/o : C/o S.D.Shaikh (PSI), Room No. 100, Police Lane, Kranti Chowk, Aurangabad. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, School and Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032, and others ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. Nitin Pradhan Sr. Counsel for Applicants -Petitioners. Shri Sanjay Kolhare,Advocate for Applicants- petitioners in W. P. Nos 4000/08, 4001/08, 4002/08, 4003/08,4004/08. Shri Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General for Respondent -Union of India. Shri.S.V.Kurundkar,Addl.G.P. For respondent-State. Shri U.R.Bondar,Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 2ND SEPTEMEBER, 2010. PER COURT : 4 1. This Application is moved for speaking to minutes in respect of the order dated 20th July, 2010, passed by this Court(CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ.). 2. Mr.Nitin Pradhan, learned Senior Counsel referred to para No.6 of the order. The learned Sr. counsel further submits that consequent to the directions issued by this Court, the State Government had initiated process of framing appropriate rules/regulations. It is evident from the affidavit-in-reply filed by Mr.A.M. Bhattalwar, Joint Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai dated 23rd August,2010 and affidavit-in-reply filed by Mr.S.S.Shinde, Solicitor-cum-Joint Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, dated 21st August, 2010. 3. The learned Sr. Counsel referred to Judgments delivered by Apex Court, which were 5 cited earlier before this Court, which are also referred to in the order dated 20th July, 2010. The learned Counsel express concern in respect of the directions issued by this Court in respect of framing rules/regulations including pays-scales of the employees. 4. The learned counsel submits that in view of the judgments, in the case of P.A. Inamdar and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2005)6 Supreme Court Cases, 537, the Apex Court while dealing with question No.5-C had observed: “So far as the statutory provisions regulating the facets of administration are concerned, in case of an unaided minority educational institution, the regulatory measure of control should be minimal and the conditions of recognition as well as the conditions of affiliation to a university or board have to be complied with, but in the matter of day-to-day management, like the appointment of staff, teaching and non-teaching, and administrative control over them, the management should have the freedom and there 6 should not be any external controlling agency. However, a rational procedure for the selection of teaching staff and for taking disciplinary action has to be evolved by the management itself. For redressing the grievances of employees of aided and unaided institutions who are subjected to punishment or termination from service, a mechanism will have to be evolved, and in our opinion, appropriate tribunals could be constituted, and till then, such tribunals could be presided over by a judicial officer of the rank of District Judge. The State or other controlling authorities, however, can always prescribe the minimum qualification, experience and other conditions bearing on the merit of an individual for being appointed as a teacher or a principal of any educational institution. Regulations can be framed governing service conditions for teaching and other staff for whom aid is provided by the State, without interfering with the overall administrative control of the management over the staff. Fees to be charged by unaided institutions cannot be regulated but no institution should charge capitation fee. 7 4. The learned Sr. Counsel further submits that State would not be entitled to frame rules/regulations in respect of pay-scales of employees of unaided schools and unaided minority schools. As the State Government is in process to implement the directions issued by this Court, learned Counsel submits that the applicants decided to move this Court to put up their concern coupled with apprehension. 5. Mr. Kurundkar,learned A.G.P. submits that the directions were issued by this Court to comply with the mandate of the Apex Court, which are mentioned in the Order passed by this Court itself. In the light of the said judgments of the Apex Court, the State was directed to frame rules/regulations and accordingly in the light of the affidavits filed by the Mr. A.M. Bhattalwar, Joint Secretary, School Education Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai dated 23rd August 2010 and affidavit-in-reply filed by Mr.S.S.Shinde, Solicitor-cum-Joint Secretary, 8 Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, dated 21st August, 2010 the process has been set in motion by the State Government. 6. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for parties. We find that though there is mention and reference of pay-scale of employee in para No.6 of the order, the State Government while framing the rules/regulations shall take into consideration the directions and observations of the Apex Court as mentioned in the order itself. Therefore, at this stage, we do not find it necessary to issue any further clarificatory directions to the State Government. The motion for speaking to minutes stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK