The decisions of the Grievance Committee are not binding and are advisory in nature. The applicability of the MEPS Act depends on whether the school is considered a private school.

R.M. Borde, J.

1. Heard.

2. The petitioner is objecting to the decision of the Grievance Committee for Entertaining Complaints of Shikshan Sevak, Mumbai, Camp at Aurangabad, dated 01.03.2012, whereunder the Grievance Committee has directed quashment of appointment of the petitioner as a Shikshan Sevak and has further issued direction to the Zilla Parishad to appoint respondent No. 04 herein as a Shikshan Sevak.

3. The petitioner participated in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Shikshan Sevak in the schools operated by the Zilla Parishad, Jalna. The petitioner belongs to open category and having secured highest numbers of marks at B.Ed. examination as well as in the interview, has been selected to the post of Shikshan Sevak from amongst open category.

4. Initially under the advertisement issued by the Zilla Parishad, two posts were earmarked for Scheduled Tribe category and six posts were provided for Other Backward Class category. Since there was no response to the advertisement for filling up vacancies from amongst Scheduled Tribe category, the Zilla Parishad proceeded to issue a corrigendum on 18.01.2010 to the advertisement declaring thereunder that in the event of unavailability of the candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe category, the posts would be filled in from amongst open category.

5. Since the petitioner has been selected from amongst open category for the post of Shikshan Sevak, aggrieved thereby, the respondent No. 04, who belongs to Other Backward Class category, approached the Grievance Committee with a contention that the selection of the petitioner is bad in law and the post ought to have been allotted to the candidate belonging to O.B.C. category. The respondents placed reliance on the provisions of Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 [For short, "MEPS Rules"] to contend that in the event of failure of the employer to fill in the vacancy by appointing a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe category, same ought to have been allotted to O.B.C. category. The Grievance Committee accepted the contention of the respondents and directed quashment of appointment of the petitioner and further issued directions to the Zilla Parishad to appoint respondent No. 04 as Shikshan Sevak.

6. The petitioner in the instant petition has questioned the authority of the Grievance Committee to direct quashment of appointment of the petitioner relying upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of The Secretary, Sh. A.P.D. Jain Pathshala & others Vs. Shivaji Bhagwat More & others 2011 (5) ALL.M.R. 460 (S.C.). It is the contention of the petitioner, that the orders issued by the Grievance Committee are not of binding character and such decisions are merely advisory in nature and it is for the State Government to consider the recommendations of the Grievance Committee and take appropriate decision. It is also further laid down by the Apex Court that the Grievance Committee cannot direct quashment of appointment of an employee. It is held that the constitution of a Grievance Committee under an executive order for performing adjudicatory function and rendering binding decisions on the parties to the disputes is impermissible. The decisions of the Grievance Committee are not binding on the parties since those are not quasi judicial forum and that the decisions of the Grievance Committee are merely in the nature of its opinion expressed by the Committee and are not of binding character. The Apex Court in paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 of the judgment has observed thus:-

"19. Therefore, we hold that constitution of a Grievance Committee as a public adjudicatory forum, whose decisions are binding on the parties to the disputes, by an executive order of the Government is impermissible. Secondly, the High Court cannot in exercise of judicial power interfere with the jurisdiction of the civil courts vested under Code of Civil Procedure. Any such Grievance Committe