SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(SC) 595

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveedran & A.K. Patnaik, JJ.

The Secretary, Sh. A. P. D.Jain Pathshala & Ors.
Vs.
Shivaji Bhagwat More & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 4988 of 2011 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22040/2008] And Civil Appeal No. 4989 of 2011 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23566/2008] Writ Petition No. 7362 of 2007]
Decided On : 04 July, 2011

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Uday S. Matte, Mr. N.R. Katneshwarkar, Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, Advocates, for the Appellant(s).
Mr. Dilip Annasaheb Taur, Mr. Anil Kumar, Mr. Shankar Chillarge, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Advocates, for the Respondent(s).

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 233 - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Conditions of Service Regulation Act - Payment of fixed honorarium- Relating to selection appointment - Scheme in essence provided appointment of term one year on payment of fixed honorarium renewal of such appointment annually if work was found to be satisfactory absorption of such into service as teachers on completion of specified years of service - Provided for constitution of three member Grievance Redressed Committee consisting of concerned Divisional Deputy Director Education Assistant Director and the Education Officer to consider and decide grievances relating to selection appointment re appointment or midyear cancellation of appointment – Held, Direction of High Court in its order dated that when grievance committee holds that termination is bad is deemed to continue on rolls of management is therefore erroneous and liable to be set aside - Grievance Committee opines that termination or cancellation of appointment of was bad State Government may consider such opinion recommendation and if it decides to accept it take appropriate action by directing school take back and school fails to comply take such action as is permissible including stoppage of grant - An opinion by Grievance Committee that termination of services is illegal cannot however have effect of either reinstating employee into service nor deemed to be declaration that continues to be an employee school - Even if wrongly removed department could only direct school to take him back into service and if it does not comply take action permissible in law for disobedience of its directions - Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT

R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

1. Leave granted in both the petitions.

2. The Government of Maharashtra by Government Resolution dated 27.4.2000 accorded sanction for implementation of the Shikshan Sevak scheme in all recognized private secondary/higher secondary schools/Junior colleges/B.Ed. colleges, in the state. The said scheme in essence provided for (i) appointment of Shikshan Sevaks for a term of one year on payment of a fixed honorarium, (ii) renewal of such appointment annually, if the work was found to be satisfactory, (iii) absorption of such Shikshan Sevaks into service as teachers on completion of the specified years of service. It provided for constitution of a three member Grievance Redressal Committee (consisting of the concerned Divisional Deputy Director of Education, the Assistant Director and the Education Officer) to consider and decide the grievances relating to selection, appointment, re-appointment or mid-year cancellation of appointment. The scheme provided as follows:

'All the complaints received under the Shikshan Sevak scheme are to be referred to the aforesaid Three Member Committee. This committee will hold monthly meetings and render its decision on the complaints and would inform the same to the concerned. An opportunity to put up the case would be given to the complainant.'

(Emphasis supplied)

3. The Bombay High Court disposed of several writ petitions challenging the said scheme, by order dated 16.8.2000, recording the submission made on behalf of the state government that it would amend the scheme by incorporating the several modifications suggested by the court. While doing so, the High Court also directed the state government to reconstitute the Grievance Redressal Committee with a retired District Judge as Chairman and the Deputy Director and Education Officer (Secondary) of the concerned region as members. The High Court further directed as follows:

'All complaints relating to unsatisfactory work or misconduct etc. will be forwarded to the Committee who shall take decision within 30 days from the date of receipt of record after giving an opportunity to the concerned parties to file their replies so as to avoid prolonged procedure of oral hearing.

All complaints in respect of appointment, termination etc. shall be dealt with only by the Committee constituted above and by no other authority. As the scheme is being implemented on interim basis we direct that no Civil Court shall entertain any suit or application in respect of disputes which are required to be dealt with by the Committee.'

(emphasis supplied)

4. In compliance with the said decision dated 16.8.2000, the State Government by Government Resolution dated 13.10.2000 modified the scheme. Clause (17) of the modified scheme implemented the direction of the High Court regarding the re-constitution of the Three Member Committee and provided that the Committee would function at Mumbai, Aurangabad and Nagpur, the area of jurisdiction of the committees corresponding to the jurisdiction of the benches of High Court at Mumbai, Aurangabad and Nagpur.

5. By order dated 21.6.2001 in subsequent writ petitions, the High Court recorded the following submissions of the State Government:

'The learned Advocate General stated that the State Government will appoint a nine member Grievance Committee and the pending grievances of the Shikshan Sevaks will be referred to the said Grievance Committee. The Committee will be headed by a retired Civil Judge, Sr. Division, who will be appointed in consultation with the Registrar of this Court. The learned Advocate General assured the Court that the appointment of the Committee member will be notified within a period of six weeks from today. He also stated that the Member of the Grievance Committee will be given salary and emoluments as paid to the member of the School Tribunal and necessary infrastructure will also be provided. He stated that the Committee will hold the proceedings in Mumbai, Aurangabad and Nagpur to c







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top