IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(Nagpur)
Ginwala A.A. and Dhabe H.W. JJ.
Shriram Swami Shikshan Sanstha.... Petitioner.
Versus
Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and another .... Respondents.
Writ Petition No, 2629 of 1982 decided on 24-2-1983.
Advocate Appeared::
For petitioner-A. Shelat.
For respondent No. 1-W. M. Sombre.
For respondent No. 2-Ku. N. R. Sarin.
EDUCATION - JURISDICTION OF EDUCATION OFFICER - ACT SECTION REFERRED : Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, Section 7, Section 9 - SUMMARY : The Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, lacks jurisdiction to decide whether an Assistant Teacher's resignation is valid or forced. The Act provides no such authority. However, forced resignation is considered termination of service by the employer and can be challenged before the Tribunal under Section 9 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
An Assistant Teacher alleged her resignation was obtained by force and complained to the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur. The Additional Education Officer held the resignation invalid and ordered the school management to reinstate her.
Finding of the Court:
The Education Officer lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the Act does not confer such authority. Forced resignation is considered termination of service by the employer and can be challenged before the Tribunal under Section 9 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, has jurisdiction to decide the validity of an Assistant Teacher's resignation. 2. Whether forced resignation is considered termination of service by the employer and can be challenged before the Tribunal under Section 9 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Act does not confer jurisdiction on the Education Officer to decide the validity of an Assistant Teacher's resignation. 2. Forced resignation is considered termination of service by the employer and can be challenged before the Tribunal under Section 9 of the Act.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order of the Additional Education Officer was set aside. No order as to costs.
2. The petitioner management has challenged this order of the Addi- tional Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint about the forced resignation. It is also pointed out in the petition that if at all such a grievance about the forced resignation can be made, it is only under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short, the Act). It is at this stage also pointed out that in the applica- tion for vacation of stay, filed by the respondent No. 2, she had complained that initially she had moved the Tribunal under section 9 of the Act, but the Tribunal returned her complaint back.
3. The principal question in this petition is whether the respondent No. 1, i.e. the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the respondent No. 2 regarding her forced resigna- tion. We have perused the provisions of the Act and we find that there is no provision in the Act which confers any jurisdiction upon the Education Officer in regard to this matter. Section 7 of the Act read with rule 40 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) -Rules, 1981, deals with the procedure for tendering resignation but no pro- vision is made creating a forum for adjudication upon such resignations tendered by the employees. The respondents 1 and 2 have not been able to bring to our notice any provision of law which confers jurisdiction upon the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, in such matters, it is, therefore, clear that the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, erred and acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the complaint of the respondent No. 2 about the forced resignation. His impugned order dated December 3, 1982, is, there- fore, liable to be set aside on this short ground.
4. However, since an important question as regards the remedy to the employee in such matters is raised before us, both by the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2, it is necessary to consider the provisions of the Act to see whether there is a remedy provided in the Act in such matters. This brings us to section 9 of the Act, which creates a forum for adjudica- tion in regard to removal, dismissal or termination of service of the em- ployees covered under the Act. The provisions of section 9(1) are reproduc- ed below for ready reference :
“9. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract for the time being in force, any employee in a private school who is dismissed or removed or whose services are otherwise terminated or who is reduced in rank, by the Management and who is aggrieved, shall have a right of appeal and
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.