Back
In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
S.A. BOBDE & A.B. CHAUDHARI
Murlidhar s/o Janrao Kale & Others
Versus
State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Department & Others
WRIT PETITION NO.3034 OF 2010
Decided on : 29-10-2010
Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Sections 22 and 80-Management of Trust and Schools-Power or jurisdiction to decide which Board of Trustees or Trustee shall run same-Deputy Director of Education not conferred with authority, power or jurisdiction to decide same-Jurisdiction conferred on Assistant Charity Commissioner.-Court holds that the Deputy Director of Education had no authority, power or jurisdiction to decide which board of trustee or trustee shall run the management of the Trust and the School but the jurisdiction is with the Assistant Charity Commissioner. Court, therefore holds that the order dated 30.1.2010, passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Amravati Division, Amravati holding that the elected Management led by President in the election on 16.3.2008 and the member shown in the Change Report No. 119/2008 are the authorized trustees to look after the management of the Trust and the school, is without any authority and without jurisdiction. It is noteworthy that this Court while remitting the matter to the Deputy Director of Education while deciding Writ Petition No. 3983/2009 on 11.1.2010 had never asked the Deputy Director of Education to decide this question as to who shall run the Trust and it institutions.
Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Section 41-A-Issuance of directions for proper administration of Trust-Power of Commissioner-Charity Commissioner empowered to issue directions to any Trustee or a person connected with to ensure proper administration of Trust-Charity Commissioner can pass an order under Section 41-A of Act to direct or recognize a Trustee/Trustees/Board of Trustees or person connected with Trust whose names either entered or not in P.T. Register maintained under Section 17 of Act, pending disputes between than even otherwise.-The Charity Commissioner is empowered to issue directions to any trustee or a person connected there with to ensure that the trust is properly administered. Since schools, colleges and institutions are run by public trusts, it follows that any such directions will ensure that they are properly administered either during the pendency of disputed change reports or as the case may be. Court, therefore holds that an order under Section 41-A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act can be passed to direct or recognise a trustee/trustees/Board of Trustees or the persons connected with the trust whose names are either entered or not entered in the P.T Register maintained under Section 17 of the Act, pending disputes between them or even otherwise.
Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Section 41-A-Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, Rules 3(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)-Power of Education Officer/Deputy Director-Education Officer/Deputy Director has limited power-They can direct Management to cancel appointment made only when procedure under Rule 3 of Rules not followed-These Officers have no power to cancel/suspend or withdraw approval or administrative and financial powers of a Head Master for any other reason than those mentioned in Rule 3(1) to (5) of Rules.-The Education Officer/Deputy Director can direct the management to cancel the appointments made only when the procedure laid in Rule 3 of the M.E.P.S. Rules is not followed. Thus, there is no power in these officers to cancel/suspend or withdraw the approval or administrative and financial powers of a Head Master for any other reason than those mentioned in Rules 3(1) to (5) of the M.E.P.S. Rules; and therefore in case of dispute amongst the trustee about such appointment, power under Rule 3(6) of the M.E.P.S. Rules cannot be exercised. Both the above Circulars dated 24.6.1986 and 8.1.1988 have repository of power only under Rule 3(6) of the M.E.P.S. Rules and thus action to be taken as mentioned in these Circulars will be only when the appointments is found to be in breach of Rules 3(1) to (5) of the M.E.P.S. Rules. In the case in hand, there are no allegations about the breach of Rule 3(1) to (5) of the M.E.P.S. Rules, but they are about the legality and validity of the status of the trustees/Board of trustees and thus power under Rule 3(6) of the M.E.P.S. Rule 3(6) of the M.E.P.S. Rules and the said Circulars cannot be exercised.
A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.
1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties.
2. The present petition involves the following two questions:
(i) Who is the authority to decide which trustee or a board of trustee or groups of trustees or persons connected with the trust are entitled to administer the Trust, its institutions or schools or colleges and whether the Deputy Director of Education or any other Education Authority will have jurisdiction to decide such issue or authorize the trustees or board of trustees or group of trustees to look after the administration of the schools run by a Trust pending disposal of the change reports before the Assistant Charity Commissioner or even in case of dispute?
(ii) Whether there is any power with the Deputy Director of Education or any other Education Authority or the Education Officer to withdraw the administrative or financial powers of head of the institutions/schools and authorize any other or senior most teacher from the same school and if so, in what circumstances?
3. There is no dispute that Sategaon Education Society, Sategaon is a registered Society/Trust under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act as well as the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and the said Society is a Education Society/Trust. There were in all eight trustees as per P.T.R. register of the Trust, which runs two grant-in-aid schools, recognized by the Government, namely, J.D. Patil High School and Junior College, Sategaon and Smt. Kokilabai Gawande High School at Turkhed. Out of eight trustees, Secretary Shri Vasant Mankar died on 11.11.2008 and thus as per P.T.R. entries, seven trustees remained after the death of Shri Vasant Mankar. It appears that three trustees are under the group of President Shri N.N. Mankar and remaining four trustees are under the group of Vice-President Shri M.G. Kale. The group of Vice-President admitted Smt. Rekha Mankar the widow of the the then Secretary Shri Vasant Mankar in the Trust on the post of Secretary and accordingly he filed the change report with the office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, reporting the change. The group of President filled up the vacant post of Secretary; replaced few trustees by other persons and filed change report vide Change Report No.119/2008.
4. The dispute sparked with the group of Vice-President questioning the legality and validity of promotion of one Ku. U.P. Khadse on the post of Headmistress on the ground that the resolution to appoint her was a false and fake resolution shown by the group of President and since majority of the trustees i.e. four trustees including the trustee Shri M.G. Kale i.e. Vice-President were not party to the said alleged resolution, they did not approve the said appointment. The alleged appointment was made by the trustees, who were not competent and legally entitled to appoint her. The Vice-President Shri M.G. Kale and his group then passed a resolution to relieve Ku. U.P. Khadse from the administrative and financial powers and to assign the same temporarily to supervisor of the school and in terms of the said resolution they submitted proposal dated 13.7.2009 to the Education Officer requesting him to withdraw the powers. The Education Officer approved the said resolution by his order dated 15.7.2009, but on 11.8.2009, he cancelled the said order dated 15.7.2009 and again restored the said order dated 15.7.2009 on the same date. In Writ Petition No.3983/2009 decided on 11.1.2010, this Court found that the said Headmistress Ku. U.P. Khadse was not heard when the Education Officer withdrew her administrative and financial powers and therefore, directed the Deputy Director of Education to hear all the concerned parties and to pass appropriate orders. The Deputy Director of Education thereafter pursuant to the said directions heard the matter upon remand and recorded a finding that the trustees allegedly elected in the election on 16.3.200
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
