Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 1991
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.D. Dhahuka, J.
Shri Girish B. Rai – Petitioner
Versus
Kalindi K. Rai – Respondent
Review Petition No. 145 of 2015 in Writ Petition No. 255 of 2002
Decided On : 11-07-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar.
For the Respondents: Mr. M.S. Lagu and Ms. M.S. Bane.
Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 114-Review petition.-Error apparent on face of record committed by writ Court in its order, can be recalled.
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - Section 3(2)-Age relaxation in promotion.-Age relaxation under Section 3(2) of Act can be granted only in respect of direct recruitment and not while making promotion.
A perusal of the order and judgment dated 10th January, 2011 further indicates that the Court has recorded a finding that the management had relaxed the conditions in respect of the appointment of the respondent No. 1 to the post of Headmistress under Section 3(2) of the M.E.P.S. Act in view of the status of minority institution granted to the respondent No. 2. Even this finding of this Court shows error apparent on the face of order in view of the fact that under Section 3(2) of the M.E.P.S. Act, discretion available to a minority institution for granting relaxation in case of qualifications can be exercised only in respect of the direct recruitment and not while making a promotion. In this case, it was the case of the management as well as of the respondent No. 1 before the School Tribunal that the respondent No. 1 was granted promotion to the post of Headmistress from the post of Assistant Teacher.
R.D. Dhanuka, J.
1. By this review petition the review petitioner (original petitioner) seeks review of the order and judgment dated 10th January, 2011 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 255 of 2002 along with Contempt Petition No. 111 of 2006. By the said order and judgment dated 10th January, 2011, this Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the review petitioner and consequently dismissed the Contempt Petition No. 111 of 2006 as infructuous. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this review petition are as under:
2. The petitioner is having qualification of Shastri (B.A.) from Sampoornanand University and B.Ed. (Physical) from Mumbai University. On 13th June, 1995, the petitioner was appointed as trained graduate teacher in the respondent no. 3 school which is the Government recognised and aided private secondary school run by the respondent no. 2 society. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the respondent no. 4 i.e. Education Officer (Secondary), Thane on 22nd December, 1999. It is the case of the petitioner that on 11th June, 1996, the petitioner was appointed as In-Charge Headmaster of the respondent no. 3 school. According to the petitioner, that he was promoted to the said post of Headmaster vide order dated 5th May, 2000 with effect from 13th June, 2000. The Education Officer granted approval to the said promotion vide order dated 7th July, 2000. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 2 management also had passed a requisite resolution for granting promotion to the petitioner.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 18th June, 1993 in another school i.e. Raje Shivaji Vidyalay (Hindi Medium), Khadegolawadi, Taluka Kalyan, District Thane when she had only passed 12th standard and was not qualified for the appointment to the post of the Assistant Teacher in the school run by the management in which her father was the Secretary. The respondent no. 1 passed B.A. In 1994 and B.Ed. in 1999. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 1 thus became qualified for the post of Assistant Teacher only when she passed B.Ed. in the year 1999. The Education Officer granted approval to the appointment of the respondent no. 1 as the Assistant Teacher on 30th September, 2000 with effect from 14th June, 1999.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the respondent no. 1 was the Chairman of the respondent no. 2 trust and a false and frivolous appointment order dated 29th June, 1994 was prepared to show that the respondent no. 1 had been appointed as Headmistress with effect from 1st July, 1994. According to the petitioner, the respondent no. 2 had prepared another false document of appointment dated 30th September, 2000 by which the respondent no. 1 was shown to have been demoted from the post of Headmistress to the post of Assistant Teacher. The respondent no. 1 filed Appeal (96 of 2000) before the School Tribunal at Navi Mumbai against the management impugning the said purported appointment letter dated 30th September, 2000. The petitioner herein was not impleaded as a party to the said appeal initially but was impleaded subsequently. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 1 in collusion with the management obtained interim order of stay to the order of the alleged reversion from the School Tribunal and also obtained approval to her alleged appointment as Headmistress of the school from the Education Officer. The petitioner thereafter made an application for being impleaded as a party respondent to the said Appeal (96 of 2000) and was joined as a party respondent to the said appeal.
5. On 15th January, 2001, the petitioner made a complaint to the Education Officer, who passed the order after hearing the petitioner and the management thereafter suspending the order dated 3rd January, 2001 by which the respondent no. 1 was granted approval to her promotion as Headmist
