ORAL JUDGMENT : ( Per Chavan, J. )

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent of the parties.

2. Petitioner, Head Master of Bhonsla Military School, Nagpur, has challenged decision of respondent management to conduct an enquiry into his misconduct through a Committee consisting of Sarvashree Kumar Kale and Yashwant Kharpate on the ground that the Enquiry Committee is not constituted as required under Rule 36(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981 (for short “MEPS Rules”).

3. Respondent No.2 has filed written submissions which have been countered by rejoinder by the petitioner. Respondent No.2 has also filed further additional submissions. Though the parties have thus furnished elaborate pleadings, on facts there is hardly any dispute between the parties. The petitioner is, undisputedly, Head Master of the School at Nagpur. Respondent No.1 runs another school at Nasik. Memorandum and Articles of Association of respondent No.1 have been amended by decentralizing control and creating branch managing committees. It cannot be seriously disputed that Shri Kumar Kale is Chairman of the Branch Managing Committee.

4. Dr. Anjay De, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has been appointed as Head Master of the Nagpur school by the General Secretary of respondent No.1 on 24.06.1999. The Branch Managing Committee is a subsequent development. Since the petitioner is head of the institution, as per Rule 36(2)(b) of the MEPS Rules the President of the management is required to be a member of the enquiry committee. The President of respondent No.1 is Shri Ghatate and not Shri Kale. Therefore, the committee is not constituted as per provisions of Rule 36(2)(b) of the MEPS Rules. According to the petitioner, the Branch Managing Committee is not management as defined in Section 2(12) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 (for short “MEPS Act”) and therefore, Shri Kumar Kale cannot at all be a member of the enquiry committee. He also submitted that the amended bye-laws cannot apply since the change is not yet been shown to have been approved by the Charity Commissioner.

5. Clause 12 of Section (2) of MEPS Act defined “Management”, and sub-clause (c) thereof, which would apply to the respondent, reads as under : “(12) “Management” in relation to a school, means - (a) ........ (b) ........ (c) in any other case, the person or body of persons, whether incorporated or not and by whatever name called, administering such school ;” The contention of Dr. De, learned Advocate for the petitioner that the management would mean only respondent No.1 does not necessarily follow from a reading of this sub-clause (c). The management can be a person or a body of persons whether incorporated or not and by whatever name called, so long as it is administering the school under appropriate authority, which can be passed on to it by the society or trust which owns the school. Therefore, if the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Trust in question empower the Branch Managing Committee to manage the affairs of the school, such Branch Managing Committee would become management for the purpose of Clause 12 of Section 2 of the MEPS Act.

6. Learned Advocate Dr. De submitted that the authority has not been passed on to the Branch Managing Committee since the changes in the bye-laws have not yet been recorded by the Charity Commissioner. He submitted that the change is required to be inquired into as per Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and only after such change is entered in the register of public trusts, it becomes effective. Learned Advocate Dr. Anjan De further refers to provisions of Section 22 A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. In our view, Section 22-A is not attracted, since the said provisions would apply if, after making entries in the register, any particular relating to an enquiry und

Click Here to Read the rest of this document