The court found employees of Ashram Schools at the primary level are entitled to file appeals under the MEPS Act and Rules due to significant changes in the law following the Right to Education Act, enabling grievance redressal via the School Tribunal.

ORAL 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 MEPS Act and Rules. On 12.10.2001, the School Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in terms of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Suryakant Sheshrao Panchal .Vs. Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jati, Bhatakya Jamati Aadarsh Prasarak Mandal and Ors., 2002(3) Mh.L.J. 659, wherein it was held that the employees of Ashram Schools at the primary level could not avail the remedy of filing an appeal under the MEPS Act and Rules. Hence, the Respondent No.1 was constrained to approach the Tribal Commissioner under the Tribal Development and Social Welfare Department to raise his grievance. The Tribal Commissioner granted relief of reinstatement to the Respondent No.1, without back wages. On a challenge raised to the same, before this Court, the matter was remanded to the Tribal Commissioner, who in the second round granted relief of reinstatement with back wages.

5. The said order of the Tribal Commissioner was challenged by the Petitioner/Management by filing Writ Petition No.5105 of 2017. The said petition was disposed of by an order dated 04.09.2017, wherein the Respondent No.1/Employee agreed for the order of the Tribal Commissioner to be set aside, with permission to avail remedy that may be available in law, including filing suit before the appropriate Civil Court. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1 filed an appeal alongwith application for condonation of delay before the School Tribunal in view of the change in law in the backdrop of enactment of the Right to Education Act, 2009 and framing of the Maharashtra Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 (in short, “Maharashtra Rules”). The Petitioner/ Management again raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the appeal under the MEPS Act and Rules by filing an application. The Tribunal considered the contentions raised on behalf of rival parties and held that in view of change in law and the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Latika Rajaram Mane .Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2013(4) Mh.L.J. 244, the appeal filed by Respondent No.1 was maintainable under Section 24(3) of the Right to Education Act read with Rule 20 of the Maharashtra Rules framed thereunder. Accordingly, the application filed by the Petitioner/Management was dismissed. The Petitioner/ Managem