Back
MANISH PITALE
Parwa Education Society, Through its Secretary Jawahar S/o. Trimbakrao Deshmukh – Appellant
Versus
Suresh S/o. Govindrao Bhure – Respondent
How to determine the maintainability of appeals by employees of Ashram primary level schools under the Maharashtra Education Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules, 1981? What is the impact of the Right to Education Act and Maharashtra Rules (2011) on the proper forum for redressal of grievances of private school teachers, particularly regarding School Tribunal jurisdiction under MEPS Act? What is the proper applicability of the definition of "school" under the Right to Education Act to Ashram Schools at the primary level in relation to MEPS Act and Rules?
Key Points: - The Court analyzes whether employees of Ashram Schools at the primary level can approach the School Tribunal under MEPS Act and Rules in light of RtE Act and 2011 Rules. (!) (!) (!) - It considers changes in law after RtE Act and 2011 Rules, following Latika Rajaram Mane and Shri Hansh Shikshan Krida decisions, to permit appeals before School Tribunal for certain private/aided schools. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Court holding: Ashram Schools at the primary level are covered by RtE Act and Maharashtra Rules; hence appeals are maintainable before the School Tribunal; previous limitations under MEPS Act are superseded. (!) (!) - It rejects the Management’s contention of distinguishing Ashram Schools under Tribal Development vs School Education Department for non-applicability. (!) - The Tribunal’s impugned order in one petition is quashed; in the other, the petition is allowed; both require expeditious/continued proceedings. (!) - The case clarifies that 2011 Rules provide a grievance redressal mechanism for teachers; change in law altered the forum for grievance redressal. (!) (!) (!) (!) - (!)
JUDGMENT :
RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the rival parties.
2. By these two petitions, orders passed by the School Tribunal are made subject matter of challenge. The question that arises for consideration is, as to whether the employees in these petitions were entitled to invoke the provisions of the Maharashtra Education Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules, 1981 framed thereunder (for short, “the MEPS Act and Rules”) to approach the School Tribunal to ventilate their grievances. In Writ Petition No.8270 of 2019, the employee is the Respondent No.1, while in Writ Petition No.2571 of 2021, the employee is the Petitioner.
3. Before dealing with the impugned orders passed in these two petitions, it would be necessary to briefly refer to the facts pertaining to these petitions.
4. In Writ Petition No.8270 of 2019, the Respondent No.1 claimed that his services were otherwise terminated by the Petitioner/Management, as far back as in the year 2001. Being aggrieved by the action of the Management, the Respondent No.1 had filed an appeal before the School Tribunal under the provisions of the MEP
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
