JUDGMENT :

Nitin Jamdar, J.

The Full Bench is called upon to answer the reference made by the learned Single Judge by order dated 24 November 2021 concerning the jurisdiction of the School Tribunal under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977.

2. Following events led to the reference. The Petitioner- Hashmiya Bahrul Faiz Social Welfare Association conducts D.Ed. College for girls at Solapur. Abdullah M. Shukur Qureshi, Respondent No.1, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the D.Ed College. Respondent No.1 filed an Appeal No.21/2013, under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act) in the School Tribunal at Pune, claiming that he was being harassed by the Petitioner- Management who was not allowing him to perform his duties, which resulted in his illegal termination. The Petitioner and its Principal- Respondent No.2, filed a reply opposing the appeal, arguing that Respondent No.1 was not qualified to hold the post and was habitually absent. They sought dismissal of the appeal on these grounds. After considering the evidence on record, the School Tribunal concluded that there was no merit in the Petitioner's opposition and that Respondent No.1 was illegally terminated. The School Tribunal allowed the appeal of Respondent No.1 by the order dated 21 April 2015 and directed the Petitioner to reinstate Respondent No.1 with continuity of service from the date of his termination and full back wages. The Petitioner challenged the Tribunal's order by filing the present writ petition on 29 November 2018.

3. During the hearing of the Petition on 24 November 2021, the Petitioner argued that the School Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain Respondent No.1's appeal. The Petitioner contended that since the D.Ed college conducted by it was not a 'Recognised Private School' under the MEPS Act, the appeal would not fall within the scope of section 9 of the MEPS Act. The Petitioner relied on the decision of a Single Judge of this Court (V.R.Kingaonkar J) in the case of Ravindra s/o. Motiram Firake Versus Janata Shikshan Mandal, District Jalgaon & Ors., 2009 (4) ALL MR 504 The learned Single Judge, in that case, had held that the employees of D.Ed. and B.Ed. Colleges do not have a remedy of appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act as these colleges recognised under the National Council of Teachers Education Act, 1993 (NCTE Act), cannot be considered recognised under the MEPS Act. Respondent No.1, on the other hand, placed reliance on the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court (S.C.Dharmadhikari and M.S.Karnik, JJ.) dated 28 February 2019 disposing of three petitions i.e. Writ Petition Nos.9808/2013, 9807/2013 and 9809/2013 (This order is referred to as the case of Gururaj Vasantrao Kulkarni Versus The State of Maharashtra., Writ Petition No.9808 of 2013, dated 28 February 2019 ). Respondent No.1 contended that the Division Bench had concluded that Section 9 of the MEPS Act would apply to employees in D.Ed and B.Ed colleges until separate service conditions were prescribed for them under the NCTE Act.

4. After considering the rival contentions, learned Single Judge( G.S.Kulkarni J ) thought it appropriate that the question as to whether the decision of the Division Bench in Gururaj Vasantrao Kulkarni (supra) can be considered to have sub silentio overruled the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Ravindra Motiram Firake, needs to be decided by the larger Bench. G.S. Kulkarni, J, accordingly, framed issues for consideration and directed that the proceedings be placed before the learned Chief Justice for appropriate directions. Thereafter the reference is placed before us for consideration.

5. G.S. Kulkarni, J, has referred the following issues for consideration of the larger Bench :

(i) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in Gururaj Vasant Kulkarni (supra) can be considered to have sub silentio