S. B. Deshmukh, J.

1. 1. The petitioners, whose services stand terminated on account of derecognition of Kakde Kanya Vidyalaya, a Secondary School (for Girls) run by the respondent No. 1, seek to challenge the vires of Rule 25(A) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules of 1981 for short) by filing this petition in this Court, along with some ancillary reliefs.

2. 2. Though the constitutional validity of Rule 25(A) of the said Rules of 1981, principally, is challenged in this petition, to understand the controversy for the said reliefs, few facts relevant need to be stated as under:--

Kakde Kanya Vidyalaya, Kalmeshwar, tahsil Kalmeshwar, district Nagpur, was established by the respondent No. 1 Swargiya Sakharamji Shikshan Sanstha (hereafter referred to as the Management for short) which is a registered Public Trust, also registered as Society under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The respondent No. 1

-Management, could get permission for the said Kakde Kanya Vidyalaya, Kalmeshwar, somewhere in the year 1984. Kakde Kanya Vidyalaya, was comprising of 5th to 10th standard. Kakde Kanya Vidyalaya, was admitted to the grant-in-aid from the State Government from the year 1985, for the classes from Standard 8th to 10th and from the year 1987 for the classes from standard 5th to 7th. Thus said Kakde Kanya Vidyalaya was recognized and aided Secondary School. The petitioners were appointed by the respondent No. 1-Management and their appointments were approved of by the respondent No.

3. The respondent No. 2 had served a notice dated 27-12-1995 to the respondent No. 1, for derecognition of the said Kakde Kanya Vidyalaya on account of short comings and violation of the provisions of the Secondary School Code. The respondent No. 2 -Deputy Director of Education, after hearing the respondent No. 1, passed an order on 22-1-1996 derecognising the said school i.e. Kakde Kanya Vidyalaya from the end of the academic session of 1995-1996. The respondent No. 2 i.e. the Deputy Director of Education, in the order dated 22-1-1996 recorded a finding that said Kakde Kanya Vidyalaya was having very short attendance of the students, the classrooms made available were not adequate and lack of proper ventilation. The respondent No. 2 also found that up-to-date Library was not made available by the respondent No. 1 to the said School. The respondent No. 2 found that the result of the said school for the year 1994-95 was not satisfactory. The respondent No. 2 also recorded a finding that on account of poor attendance of the pupils, said Kakde Kanya Vidyalaya, had suffered penal action under Rule

98.3 of the Secondary School Code and, therefore, no grants were payable to said School. It is important to note that the respondent No. 2 in the said order dated 22-1-1996 also held that the Head Mistress, teachers, members of the non-teaching staff and Management are responsible for the said action of derecognition of Kakde Kanya Vidyalaya. Ultimately, respondent No. 2 as stated above, derecognised said Kakde Kanya Vidyalaya by the order dated 22-1-1996. The petitioners, in their petition, have stated that being aggrieved by the said order of derecognition dated 22-1-1996, have filed the writ petitions bearing Nos. 985/96, 1.174/96, 1190/96 and 1192/96 in this Court and this Court by the common judgment and order dated June 21st 1996 directed the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur, to consider the claim of each of the petitioners on merit and after affording opportunity of being heard to them. The Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur, heard the petitioners accordingly and by the order dated 10-7-1996 held that the petitioners could not be held undisputedly guilty for action of derecognition of the said Kakde Kanya Vidyalaya and, therefore, petitioners are eligible to the benefit of Rule 25(A)(2) of the said Rules of 1981. The Deputy Director, Nagpu