The court upheld the validity of the Government Resolution allowing the transfer of derecognized schools, emphasizing that petitioners lacked standing as they had been absorbed into other institutions.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.

Heard.

Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2) Both these petitions question the validity of Government Resolution (GR) dated 04/12/2023 issued by respondent No.1 as unconstitutional being ultra-virus to Article 14 of the Constitution, void, and arbitrary, therefore, transfer of the Ashram School run by respondent No.5 – the NGO namely the Semana Vidya Va Vanvikas Prashikshan Mandal, Gadchiroli to respondent No.6 – Navjyot Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Lavhala, Taluka Mehkar, District Buldhana, is claimed to be contrary to the GR dated 19/12/2016.

(3) The petitioners in both these petitions were appointed by respondent No.5 authorities to officiate as teachers and other non- teaching posts of Class – III and Class – IV in the Shivani Adiwasi Secondary and Higher Secondary, Ashram School, Pavimuranda, District Gadchiroli (hereinafter referred to as “Ashram School”) which is government aided, run by respondent No.5 NGO, namely, Semana Vidya Va Vanvikas Prashikshan Mandal, Gadchiroli (for short, “Respondent No.5 NGO”). The Ashram School receives 100% grant-in- aid from respondent No. 1. It was governed according to the terms and conditions, as well as under the guidance, financial aid, and statutory mandate of the State of Maharashtra through the Tribal Development Department. The respondent, No. 5 NGO, confirmed the petitioners’ appointments as permanent to their respective posts. The respondents Nos. 1 to 4 duly approved their services. Respondent No.1 had issued various GRs from time to time to ensure the smooth running of management and governance of the Ashram Schools throughout the State of Maharashtra.

(4) The Ashram School was facing tremendous hardship, with several basic facilities lacking, including inadequate infrastructure, insufficient electricity, and a shortage of daily necessities, which led to a decline in student admissions. The petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition No.2251/2024 while working as Principal/Headmaster of the said Ashram School have repeatedly made several representations to the various authorities to ensure smooth running of the Ashram School, but due to maladministration and inaction on the part of respondent No.5 NGO, not only the employees including the petitioners, but also students and local people were facing hardship and the said Ashram School was on the verge of closing down. The same was noted by respondent No. 3 in its letters dated 14/07/2016, 12/03/2018, 14/08/2020, and 26/05/2022, which forwarded the proposal to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to initiate action for the derecognition of the said Ashram School. However, this action was stayed by the GR dated 10/06/2019. Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 have not taken any positive steps to provide the necessary educational materials, infrastructure, electricity, food, and other essential items required for the smooth functioning of the Ashram School.

(5) Respondent No. 3, vide communication dated 17/10/2022, requested Respondent No. 2 to guide its office on how to temporarily absorb teaching and non-teaching staff from Ashram School into other Ashram Schools, so that their salaries can be released. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 noted that respondent No. 5 did not provide the educational materials and facilities to the Ashram School; accordingly, the petitioners were temporarily absorbed into service in other Ashram Schools through a separate notification. The respondent No.5 played fraud with petitioners and respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and prepared forged and fabricated minutes of the meeting, evincing that petitioners have given their consent for the transfer of the Ashram School from village Pavimuranda, District Gadchiroli, to respondent No.6 Navjyot Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Lavhala, Taluka Mehkar, District Buldhana. (for short, “Respondent No.6.-institution”) When petitioners and other teachers and non-teaching staff came to know about the said act of respondent No.5, they raised an objectio