Millat Education Society, Darwha, Yavatmal, Through Its President, Mohammad Ilyas And Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary, School And Education Department And Another
- Court
- Bombay High Court
2026:BHC-NAG:7859-DB
1 wp 1775.26 judg.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1775 OF 2026
1. Madhao Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha,
Dawaniwada, Tah. Dist. Gondia,
through its Secretary,
Damyantibai Madhaorao Bhoyar.
2. Swargiya Sarjabai Bhoyar
Science/Arts Junior College,
Walad/Dawaniwada, Tah. Dist. Gondia,
through its Principal
3. Niteshkumar Ramu bhoyar,
Aged 41 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o. C/o. Swargiya Sarjabai Bhoyar
Vidyalaya, Walad/Dawaniwada,
Tah. Dist. Gondia …... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
2. Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur. ....RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION NO. 2229 OF 2026
1. Ku Surekha Waman Kodape,
Aged 42 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o. Gautam Nagar, Bhadrawati,
Tah. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur ..... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1.The Education Officer (Sec.)
Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur
2. Swargiya Matoshri Yamunabai Shinde
Vidyalaya, Chora, Tah. Bhadrawati,
Dist. Chandrapur,
through its Headmaster. ...RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION NO. 4513 OF 2026
1. Mahila Jagruti Shikshan Sanstha,
Bagholi, Tah. Tirora, Dist. Gondia,
through its Secretary,
2 wp 1775.26 judg.odt
2. Monali Manoj Patle,
Aged 34 yrs, occ. Service,
3. Ku Manisha Pundlik Kurve,
(After Marriage Smt. Manisha Vivek Dhore)
Aged 39 yrs, Occ. Service
The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, are
r/o c/o. Jiradevi Patle Purva Madhyamik
Shala, Ekodi, Tah. Dist. Gondia …... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1.The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur
2. The Education Officer, (Sec.),
Zilla Parishad, Gondia .....RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION NO. 1105 OF 2025
Kawdu s/o Ramji Nyahare,
Aged 45 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o Balaji nagar, Arvi,
Tah Arvi, Dist. Wardha …... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra, through
its Secretary School Education and
Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
2. Chief Officer,
Municipal council, Arvi,
Tah. Arvi, Dist. Wardha
3. Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Wardha,
Tah. and Dist. Wardha
4. The Headmaster,
Nagar Parishad Uchha Madhyamik
Vidyalaya, Arvi, Tah. Arvi
Dist. Wardha. .....RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION NO. 1268 OF 2025
1. Millat Education Society
3 wp 1775.26 judg.odt
having office at Railway Station Road,
Darwha Dist. Yavatmal, through
its President Mohammad Ilyas
2. M.N.M. Urdu High School,
Millat Campus Yerkheda,
Kamptee 441 001
Dist. Nagpur, through the Head
Mistress, Rubiya Sultana
3. Nilofar Saleem Ahemad Khan,
aged about 54 yrs, R/o Utkarsh Uttara
Apartment, Sri Krishna Gupta Road,
New Colony, Sadar Nagpur …... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. The State of Maharashtra, through
its Secretary School and Education
Department.
2. The Joint Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur
.....RESPONDENTS
Email : [email protected] n
WRIT PETITION NO. 1410 OF 2025
1.Navjeevan Shikshan Sanstha, Ramtek,
through its Secretary, Tilak Ward,
Takka More Complex, Near bus Stop,
Th. Ramtek, Dist. Ramtek 441 106
2. Navjeevan High School and Junior
College, Pathrai (Ambazari), Th. Ramtek,
Dist. Nagpur, thr its Incharge Head Mistress,
Pranili w/o Jitendra Sarode
(Ku. Varsha d/o Khushal Kathane)
3. Jagjeevan s/o Ramdas Chandrakapure,
age about 55 yrs, occ. Service,
r/o c/o Navjeevan High School and
Junior College, Pathrai (Ambazari),
Th. Ramtek, Dist. Nagpur
4. Kamlakar s/o Mitaram Kodvate,
age about 52 yrs, Occ Service,
r/o c/o Navjeevan High School and
Junior College, Pathrai (Ambazari),
4 wp 1775.26 judg.odt
Th. Ramtek, Dist. Nagpur
5. Ishwar s/o Sadhorao Varkade,
age about 49 yrs, occ. Service,
r/o c/o Navjeevan High School and
Junior College, Pathrai (Ambazari),
Th. Ramtek, Dist. Nagpur
6. Motilal s/o Devidas Vaidya,
age about 40 yrs, Occ Service
r/o c/o Navjeevan High School and
Junior College, Pathrai (Ambazari),
Th. Ramtek, Dist. Nagpur
7. Sau Suvarna w/o Umakant Mahajan,
age about 43 yrs, occ. Service,
r/o c/o Navjeevan High School and
Junior College, Pathrai (Ambazari),
Th. Ramtek, Dist. Nagpur
8. Arvind s/o Shibharam Khobragade,
age about 42 yrs, Occ. Service,
r/o c/o Navjeevan High School and
Junior College, Pathrai (Ambazari),
Th. Ramtek, Dist. Nagpur
9. Asif s/o Gaffar Sheikh
age about 42 yrs, occ. Service
r/o c/o Navjeevan High School and
Junior College, Pathrai (Ambazari),
Th. Ramtek, Dist. Nagpur
10. Shrikant s/o Subhash Badwaik,
age about 39 yrs, Occ. Service,
r/o c/o Navjeevan High School and
Junior College, Pathrai (Ambazari),
Th. Ramtek, Dist. Nagpur
11. Dilip s/o Damodhar Meshram,
age about 46 yrs, Occ. Service,
r/o c/o Navjeevan High School and
Junior College, Pathrai (Ambazari),
Th. Ramtek, Dist. Nagpur
12. Sushil s/o Namdev Yenurkar,
age about 37 yrs, Occ. Service
r/o c/o Navjeevan High School and
Junior College, Pathrai (Ambazari),
5 wp 1775.26 judg.odt
Th. Ramtek, Dist. Nagpur …... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. The State of Maharashtra, through
its Secretary, Education and Sports
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
2. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur
3. The Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Ramtek,
Tah. Ramtek, Dist. Nagpur 441 106 .....RESPONDENT
WRIT PETITION NO. 1591 OF 2025
1.Manoj s/o Ramchand Banothe,
aged about 40 yrs, Occ. Service,
r/o. Gonditola Zaliya, Post Kawarabandh,
Tah. Salekasa, Dist. Gondia 441 916 …... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary, Department of
School Education and Sports,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
2. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur, Balbharti
Bhavan Ravindranath Tagore Road,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3. The Education Officer (Sec.)
Zilla Parishad, Gondia
4. Centre Chief, Centre Ramatola,
Panchayat Samiti, Salekasa, Z.P. Gondia
5. Rani Avantibai Shikshan Sanstha,
Sawangi, a registered Education Society,
having registration No. 162/1993,
through its President, Devendra Singh
Pancham Singh Machhirke,
Aged 59 yrs, Occ. Retired,
Sawangi Tahsil Salekasa, Dist. Gondia
6. Virangana Rani Avantibai High
6 wp 1775.26 judg.odt
School and Junior college (Arts)
through Head Master Shri H.T. Patle,
Nakanimba, Tahsil Salekasa, Dist. Gondia .....RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION NO. 2512 OF 2025
1. Shekh Wajid Shekh Hamidulla
age 36 yrs, occ. Service,
at present Peon r/o Dr. Zakir Husen
Ward Umarkhed, Tq. Umarkhed
Dist. Yavatmal Pin Code 445 206 …... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Higher and
Technical Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
2. The Director of Higher Education,
Center Building B.J. Medical College Road
Agarkar Nagar, Pune 411 001
3. The Joint Director of Higher Education,
Amravati, Behind Government Vidarbha
Institute of Science and Humanities,
Amravati 444 604
4. The President, Yavatmal Zilla
Akhil Kunbi Samaj Sanstha Main Office
c/o Gopikabai Sitaram Gawande
Mahavidyalay Umarkhed Tq. Umarkhed
Dist. Yavatmal 445 206
5. The Vice President,
Yavatmal Zilla Akhil Kunbi Samaj
Sanstha Main Office c/o Gopikabai
Sitaram Gawande Mahavidyalay
Umarkhed Tq. Umarkhed
Dist. Yavatmal 445 206
6. The Secretary, Yavatmal Zilla Akhil
Kunbi Samaj Sanstha Main Office
c/o Gopikabai Sitaram Gawande
Mahavidyalay Umarkhed
Tq. Umarkhed Dist. Yavatmal 445 206 .....RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION NO. 1031 OF 2026
1. Sabiha Anjum Shakilurrehman Farooqui,
7 wp 1775.26 judg.odt
Aged 66 yrs, occ Retired,
R/o flat No. 301, Laxmi Imperial, Rathod
Lay Out, Anant Nagar, Nagpur …... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. The Education Officer (Sec.)
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur
2. Hindustan Vidyalaya, Lakadganj, Nagpur
through its Headmistress .....RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION NO. 2457 OF 2026
1.Shri Dnyanesh Kuwardas Meshram
aged 60 yrs, Occ. Retired,
r/o at post Thanegaon, Tah Tirora, Dist. Gondia .... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. Accountant General, Indian Audit and Accounts
Department, Pension Wing, Civil Lines, Nagpur
2. Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur
3. The Education Officer (Sec.), Zilla Parishad, Gondia
4. Siddarth Highschool, Thanegaon, Tah Tirora Dist. Gondia,
through its Headmaster. .....RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION NO. 2470 OF 2026
1. Rajeshkumar s/o Shankar Janbandhu,
aged about 53 yrs, Occ. Service,
r/o c/o Bandhu Khobragade, Pragati Nagar, Nawarkheda,
Tah Nagbhid, Dist. Chandrapur 441 205 …... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
School Education and Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
2. Deputy Director, Secondary & Higher Secondary Education,
Near Dhantoli Garden, Dhantoli, Nagpur
3. Education Officer (Sec.), Zilla Parishad, Jatpura Gate,
Chandrapur, Dist. Chandrapur 442 401
4. The President/Secretary,
8 wp 1775.26 judg.odt
Mahatma Fule Magasvargiya Mandal, Mindala,
Tah. Nagbhid, Dist. Chandrapur
5. The Headmaster, Sant Hardas Vidyalaya Mindala
Tah. Nagbhid, Dist. Chandrapur .....RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION NO. 4533 OF 2026
1. Shri Gurukrupa Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Karanja Lad, through its President
Dr. Panjabrao Vaikunthrao Ingole,
Aged 81 years, Office at 59, Yashwant Colony,
Karanja Lad, Tal. Karanja, Dist. Washim 444105.
2. Late Dr. Sou. Sulbhatai Ingole
High School and Junior College, Wapti-Kupti,
through its Head Master, Pravin Satish Soniwal,
Aged 48 years, At Post Wapti-Kupti, Karanja Lad,
Tal. Karanja, Dist. Washim 444105.
3. Atul Padmakar Fursule, aged 39 years,
Occ-Service, R/o Sunderwatika, near Babre Colony,
Karanja Lad, Tal. Karanja,
Dist. Washim 444105. …... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of School Education and Sports,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032
2. Deputy Director of Education, Amravati Division,
Amravati, Tope Nagar, Camp Area, Amravati,
Dist. Amravati 444602.
3. The Education Officer (Sec.), Zilla Parishad, Washim,
Zilla Parishad Building, Washim
Dist. Washim 444505. .... RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION NO. 2246 OF 2026
1. Jivanvikas Education Society, Siraspeth,
Umrer Road, Nagpur through its Secretary.
2.Dattatraya Highschool, Chacher, Tah Mauda,
Dist- Nagpur through its Headmaster.
3. Chandrabhan Yeshwantrao Mehar,
9 wp 1775.26 judg.odt
Aged 51 years, occ.-Service, R/o C/o Dattatraya
Highschool, Chacher, Tah. Mauda Dist. Nagpur. .... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
Department of School Education and Sports,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
2. Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
3. The Education Officer (Sec.), Zilla Parishad,
Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION NO. 2221 OF 2026
1. Ku. Sunita d/o Jagannathrao Raut
(Now Smt. Arti w/o Krishnakant Pandao)
Aged 55 years, Occ.-Service,
R/o C/o Shri M.C. Khangare, Behind Bank of Baroda,
Nagpur Road, Saoner, Tah Saoner,
Dist. Nagpur. …... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
3. The Education Officer (Sec.), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
3. Vidya Shikshan Prasark Mandal,
through its Secretary, Office at 5, Y.M.C.A. Campus,
Lata Mangeshkar Hospital, Maharajbag Road, Sitabuldi, Nagpur
4. Jawaharlal Nehru Highschool, Saoner,
Tah. Saoner, Dist Nagpur
through its Headmaster. ..... RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION NO. 1635 OF 2026
1.Majlis Madarsa Islamina, Nagpur
through its President Mohamad Zulfequar Anis
Aged 62 years, office at Islamia High School,
Mominpura, Nagpur 440018.
2. Islamia High School, Nagpur through its
Head Master, Abdul Sattar Mohamad Umar,
Aged 52 years, Mominpura, Nagpur 440018. …... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
10 wp 1775.26 judg.odt
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of School Education and Sports,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032
2. The Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division,
Balbharti, Opp Dhantoli Park, Dhantoli, Nagpur 440012.
3. The Education Officer (Sec.)
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, opposite Old Secretariat Building,
Civil Lines, Nagpur 440001.
4. The Superintendent, Pay and Provident Fund Unit,
office of Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Civil Lines, Nagpur 440001.
5. Smt. Sameera Fatema d/o Muktar Ahmad,
aged 44 years, Occ-Service (Under suspension),
r/o Near Khushabu Motors, Kalmna Road, Yerkheda,
Kamptee, Tah. Kamptee, Dist. Nagpur. ..... RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION NO. 1260 OF 2026
Ateeque Mohammad s/o Siddique Mohammad,
Aged 46 years, Occ.-Service,
R/o Farmanpura, Achalpur, Tah Achalpur,
Dist. Amravati. …... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. The Deputy Director of Education, Amravati Division, Amravati.
2. The Education Officer (Sec.), Zilla Parishad, Amravati.
3. Municipal Council, Chandurbazar,
Tah. Chandurbazar, Dist. Amravati
through its Chief Officer.
4. Sir Sayyed Khan Nagar Parishad Urdu
Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Kalmeshwar,
Chandurbazar, Ta. Chandurbazar, Dist. Amravati
through its Headmaster. ..... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P.N. Shende, Advocate for the petitioners in WP Nos. 1775/2026,
2229/2026, 4513/2026, 1031/2026, WP 2457/2026, WPs 1260/2026,
2221/2026, 2246/2026
Ms S.S. Dashputre, Advocate for petitioner in WP 1105/2025
Mr. Shad Mirza, Advocate for petitioners in WP No.1268/2025
11 wp 1775.26 judg.odt
Mr. D.A. Mohagaonkar, Advocate for petitioners in WP No.1410/2025
Mr. S.G. Karmarkar, Advocate for petitioner in WP no. 1591/2025
Mr. A.S. Chaure, Advocate for petitioner in WP 2512/2025
Mr. I.G. Meshram, Advocate for petitioner in WP Nos. 2470/2026
Mr. A.G. Moharir, Advocate h/f B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner
respondent no. 4 in WP 1635/2026, 4533/2026
Mr. D.V. Chauhan, Senior Counsel and Government Pleader a/b Mr. N.R.
Patil, AGP for respondent State in WP 1775/2026,2470/2026, 4533/2026.
Mr. D.V. Chauhan, Senior Counsel and Government Pleader a/b Mr. S.A.
Ashirgade, Addl.GP for respondent State in WP 2229/2026, 1591/2025,
1635/2026.
Mr. D.V. Chauhan, Senior Counsel and Government Pleader a/b Mrs H.S.
Dhande, AGP for respondent State in WP 4513/2026,2221/2026.
Mr. D.V. Chauhan, Senior Counsel and Government Pleader a/b Mr. A.V.
Palshikar, AGP for respondent State in WP 1105/2025, 1268/2025,
1410/2025, 1031/2026.
Mr. D.V. Chauhan, Senior Counsel and Government Pleader a/b Mr. S.B.
Bissa, AGP for respondent State in WP 2512/2025, 1260/2026, 2246/2026,
2457/2026.
Mr. A.G. Moharir, Advocate for respondent no. 4 in WP 2457/2026.
CORAM : Anil L. Pansare and Rajnish R. Vyas, JJ.
16-06-2026.
Date :
J u d g m e n t (Per Anil L. Pansare, J.)
The issue involved in these petitions is amenable to the
mechanism evolved under the Government Resolution dated
27-03-2024. The Government Resolution containing instructions to
deal with recurring complaints arising from the failure of officials of
Education Department to discharge their duties has been evolved in
terms of the instructions issued by the Division Bench of this Court at
Principal Seat from time to time in the case of Nitin Bhika Tadge
and another vs The State of Maharashtra and another in Writ
Petition No.204/2019 with connected matter which includes Writ
Petition No.1182/2024. The Grievance Redressal Committee/Appellate
Authority has been constituted to file complaints/appeals against the
order passed by the Zonal Officers on the applications of private
aided/unaided/partially aided, teaching and non teaching staff and
educational institutions in the school department. The subjects in
respect of which complaints/appeals may be preferred before the
Committee have been enumerated as follows :
12 wp 1775.26 judg.odt
“1. Cases of denial of personal recognition of teaching and
non-teaching staff.
2. Cases of rejected transfers of teaching and non-teaching
staff.
3. Cases of denial of appointment on compassionate ground.
4. Appointment Disputes on Eligibility of Employees.
5. Cases of rejection of SHALARTH ID.
6. Cases of refusal to up-gradation of part-time posts to full-
time higher secondary teachers.
7. Cases rejected on up-gradation from Part-Time Librarian
to Full-Time Librarian post.
8. Cases in which the Accountant (Education) has refused
pay revision, pay increment, and pay scale.
9. Workload related disputes/complaints.
10. Complaints/disputes regarding pension and pension
benefits.
11. Disputes regarding cancellation of posts.
12. Absorption of surplus employees on account of
abolition/reduction of post.
13. Complaints regarding violation of the rule in making
surplus employees due to cancellation/reduction of post.
14. Appeals against orders refusing to condone service
breaks within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of
Education.
15. Cases against the decision taken by Regional Officer in
the matter not covered under section 9 of the Maharashtra
Private School Employees (Conditions of Service)
Regulation Act, 1977.”
2. As stated earlier, the issue involved in these petitions and
several other petitions fall within the categories for which the State
Government has constituted Grievance Redressal Committee/ Appellate
Authority. Despite such status the instant petitions have been filed
challenging the orders passed by the Authorities of the Education
Department of the State of Maharashtra on the ground that the Division
Bench of this Court vide order dated 19-12-2024 in the case of Shri
Agrasen Shikshan Sanstha, Gondia and others vs State of
Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No.8322/2023 has
referred to a Larger Bench the question as to whether such a Grievance
Redressal Committee/Appellate Authority could be constituted by the
13 wp 1775.26 judg.odt
State Government in exercise of its executive powers under Article 162
of the Constitution of India.
3. The question therefore that arises for consideration is
whether the Grievance Redressal Committee/ Appellate Authority
constituted under the Government Resolution would stand vitiated,
particularly when the validity of Government Resolution has been
tested and upheld by Division Bench vide judgment dated 25-10-2024
in the case of Komal d/o Balaji Awatirak and another vs The
State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No.7355/2024
with connected matters.
4. Mr. D.V. Chauhan, learned Government Pleader and
Senior Counsel has invited our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Union Territory of Ladakh and
others vs Jammu and Kashmir National Conference,
through its General Secretary and another , reported in (2024)
18 SCC 643 , wherein the Court held thus :
“35. We are seeing before us judgments and orders by High
Courts not deciding cases on the ground that the leading
judgment of this Court on this subject is either referred to a
larger Bench or a review petition relating thereto is
pending. We have also come across examples of High
Courts refusing deference to judgments of this Court on the
score that a later coordinate Bench has doubted its
correctness. In this regard, we lay down the position in law.
We make it absolutely clear that the High Courts will
proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law as it
stands. It is not open, unless specifically directed by this
Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a review
petition, as the case may be. It is also not open to a High
Court to refuse to follow a judgment by stating that it has
been doubted by a later coordinate Bench. In any case,
when faced with conflicting judgments by Benches of equal
strength of this Court, it is the earlier one which is to be
followed by the High Courts, as held by a 5-Judge Bench in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi. The High
Courts, of course, will do so with careful regard to the facts
and circumstances of the case before it.”
14 wp 1775.26 judg.odt
5. Thus the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that pending
reference, the Courts will proceed to decide the matters on the basis of
the law as it stands. The Court further clarified that it will not be open to
the High Court to refuse to follow a judgment on the count that it has
been doubted by a later coordinate Bench.
6. The pronouncement indicates that pending reference the
matters will have to be processed in terms of law as it stands. Before we
comment on the position of law as it stands today, we would like to
discuss the reasons why the Government Resolution under question
was issued. The Government Resolution has been referred to in Nitin
Tadge’s case. It took note of the fact that the Educational institutes
and their employees are required to approach the High Court despite
the legal position settled in their favour but ignored by the authorities of
the Education Department while passing order. During pendency of the
said petition, the State Government issued the aforesaid Government
Resolution. The Division Bench while disposing of the individual
petition also issued directions as regards the procedure to be followed
while deciding the proposals by the educational authorities. The
directions issued read as under :-
“PART-II
A. (i) We direct that upon receipt of a proposal seeking
approval, the Educational Authority, as per the methodology
laid down in the Government Resolution dated 6 February
2012, will communicate the shortfalls/ objections in the
proposal submitted by the Management/ Employer as the
case may be calling for explanation giving them reasonable
time. Upon receipt of such explanations, the Educational
Authority will examine the explanation and pass a reasoned
order.
(ii) If any judicial pronouncement is cited regarding the
shortfalls/ objections in the explanation, then in the reasoned
order, the Educational Authority will specifically address the
legal position laid down by the said judicial pronouncement.
15 wp 1775.26 judg.odt
(iii) It is emphasized that avoiding referring to and avoiding
considering the legal position laid down in the judicial
pronouncement would be viewed seriously and may result in
action under the contempt jurisdiction of this Court.
(iv) The State Government will issue necessary instructions
or government resolutions in furtherance of the Government
Resolution dated 6 February 2012, incorporating the
aforesaid directions to all Educational Authorities in the
State within six weeks. We place the responsibility on the
Director of Education, State of Maharashtra, for the
issuance of such instructions.
B. (i) The State Government, within six weeks, will issue
necessary instructions to the Educational Authorities whose
orders are appealable as per the Government Resolution
dated 27 March 2024 to incorporate in the order that the
aggrieved party has the remedy of appeal to the appellate
forum/grievance committee constituted under the
Government Resolution dated 27 March 2024.
(ii) The State Government shall give adequate publicity to
the constitution of the appellate forum/ grievance
committees through various modes as may be available.
(iii) The State Government will issue necessary directions to
the appellate forum/ grievance committees within two weeks
to finalize the internal procedure as contemplated under the
Government Resolution dated 27 March 2024 within a
period of six weeks thereafter.
(iv) We place emphasis on the Clause in the Government
Resolution dated 27 March 2024 that the appellate
forum/Grievance Committees will consider not only
government policies, resolutions, circulars, and orders but
also judicial decisions relating to the subject.
C. (i) We take note of the Government Resolution dated 28
February 2024 laying down the procedure for complying
16 wp 1775.26 judg.odt
with the Court orders. The Educational Authorities will
scrupulously follow the mandatory directions issued by the
State Government regarding compliance with the Court
orders.
(ii) It is directed that if any legal position concerning the
tripartite relationship between the employees, Management
and the State Government in respect of the subject matter is
laid down by this Court and if the said legal position is
accepted by the State Government, then within a reasonable
time the State Government shall issue
circular/notification/government resolution instructing the
Educational Authorities in consonance with the legal
position so laid down.
D. The above timelines will come into effect from the date the
order is uploaded.”
7. Thus, the Division Bench issued directions as regards the
procedure to be followed by the educational authorities. Further and by
way Government Resolution a mechanism has been provided to deal
with the subjects not covered under Section 9 of the Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service Regulation) Act,
1979 and Rules 1981 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity and convenience
referred as to the ‘M.E.P.S. Act’ and ‘M.E.P.S. Rules’) made thereunder.
8. Thereafter, on 25-10-2024, the Division Bench at
Aurangabad in Komal’s case (supra) upheld the validity of the said
Government Resolution. On 19-12-2024, the Division Bench in Shri
Agrasen Shikshan Santhas’s case (supra) referred the issue
mentioned above to the Larger Bench. The decision of the Larger Bench
is awaited.
9. That being so, we are of the considered view that in terms
of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union
Territory (supra) until the reference is answered by the Larger
Bench, the law laid down by the Division Bench in Nitin Tadge and
Komal’s case will have to be followed and since the validity of the
17 wp 1775.26 judg.odt
Government Resolution has been upheld, the grievances/complaints
enlisted in the Government Resolution will have to be processed in
terms of the mechanism provided in the said Government Resolution
coupled with the directions issued by the Court in Nitin Tadge’s case .
10. We may note here that in Nitin Tadge’s case the
Division Bench took note of the fact that for petty matters which are
not covered under Section 9 of the MEPS Act, the educational institutes
and their employees are required to approach the High Court. The petty
matters include denial of personal recognition of teaching and non
teaching staff, the cases relating to rejection of transfer of teaching and
non-teaching staff, refusal to upgrade the post of part-time librarian to
that of full-time librarian, cases relating to pay revision, pay increments
and pay scale, cases relating to pension and pension benefits etc. The
Division Bench was of the view that despite the legal position having
been settled on these issues, the authorities of Education Department
while passing orders ignore the legal position. This practice results into
needless litigations. The Court also took note of the fact that there are
many aided schools and institutions in Maharashtra and therefore there
are number of applications seeking approval. Resultantly, the litigation
arising from the inaction/and actions of the authorities of the Education
Department on these applications is substantial. The Division Bench
was not really concerned with the number of matters but was more
concerned about the reasons leading to these petitions, one of which
was inaction on the part of the educational authorities.
11. During the course of hearing of the bunch of said petitions
learned Counsels appearing for the petitioners therein suggested to
create an appellate forum from the orders passed by the officers of the
education department against the Management and/or the employees
arising out of tripartite relations concerning approval etc. Learned
Advocate General showed willingness to do so as it would substantially
reduce the litigation. Accordingly learned Advocate General called for
the input from the Advocates appearing for the parties and held a joint
meeting with them. A draft resolution proposed to be issued by the
Government was circulated. The Counsels appearing for the petitioners
18 wp 1775.26 judg.odt
made certain suggestions and thereafter was issued the aforesaid
Government Resolution dated 27-03-2024.
12. In the said petitions, Mr. Ram Karode, learned Counsel
instructed by Mr Vinod P. Sangvikar, Advocate appeared for the
petitioners in the connected matter viz. Writ Petition No.1493/2024. As
noted earlier, the Government Resolution was issued in terms of the
suggestions made by the Counsels appearing for the petitioners. Thus,
there is every reason to believe that Mr. Karode, Advocate was one of the
participants and supported the issuance of Government resolution.
Surprisingly he appeared for the petitioners in Shri Agrasen
Shikshan Santha’s case challenging validity of the the issuance of
Government Resolution in so far as it creates an appellate forum. Mr.
Ram Karode, learned Advocate, did not disclose to the Division Bench
that he had appeared in the earlier petition and further that the
Government Resolution was the outcome of the joint efforts of the
Government and counsels appearing for the parties.
13. We, accordingly, enquired as to his authority to appear
for the petitioners in the matter questioning the issuance of Government
Resolution to which he submits that, though his name is shown in the
column of counsel appearing for the petitioners, he did not participate
in those proceedings, nor did he attend the meeting convened by the
learned Advocate General.
14. The statement is unacceptable inasmuch as he has neither
disclosed so nor did he apprise the Division Bench during the course of
hearing of his status when he argued the matter in Shri Agrasen
Shikshan Santha’s case .
15. Thus, on one hand he encouraged to issue Government
Resolution and on the other hand, he proceeded to challenge the very
same Government Resolution. He has thus failed to discharge his duties
as an officer of the Court. We accordingly deprecate the inconsistent and
dual stand adopted by Mr. Karode, Advocate. However, for the present,
we refrain from taking any further action and merely caution him that
any recurrence of such conduct shall entail a reference to the Bar
Council for appropriate action in accordance with law.
19 wp 1775.26 judg.odt
16. Coming back to the decision in Nitin Tadge (supra) , the
Court summarized the issue in following terms :
“36. To summarize, the earlier orders reproduced above are
self-explanatory, as are the Government Resolutions.
Therefore. taking an overall view of the matter and the
purpose for which the entire exercise is carried out, we
propose to issue certain directions. Our main emphasis is on
the refusal of educational authorities to follow the legal
position in judicial pronouncements. Almost all authorities of
the Education Department of the State are well-versed in
their subject, and it cannot be that it is out of ignorance that
the judicial pronouncements are side-stepped. Such conduct
results in notices for contempt being issued. Either an
apology is tendered, or the Court proceeds to pass a
deterrent order. Therefore, we make it clear that if any
judicial pronouncement is cited before the Educational
Authority, which has a bearing on the subject matter, then it
shall be the duty of the concerned officer to deal with the
same. If the officer intends to distinguish the same as not
applicable to the facts of the case, then reasons can be given,
but if it completely ignores the decision placed before it, it
cannot be countenanced. Therefore, such conscious refusal to
deal with the decisions cite amount to and would be
considered a breach of the directions Court. This is necessary
because this behaviour is giving unwarranted litigation.
Furthermore, the same is also expectee the appellate forum.
In fact, the Government Resolution dated 6 February 2012
specifically provides for the same.
37. The constant burden of litigation between te
Management, and the State Government harms society in
ways. Firstly, it puts unnecessary strain on school
management teachers, diverting their time and resources
from teaching learning. This affects the quality of education
and creates uncertainty within employees and management.
Moreover, the financial costs associated with litigation are
significant. Litigation drains res that could otherwise be
invested in improving educational facilities.
38. We propose to divide the operative part of the juc into
two parts. In Part I, we dispose of the individual petition
direction. In Part II, we lay down the procedure and
mandate tobe followed in the matters governing permission
and approvals education authorities. According to us, the
20 wp 1775.26 judg.odt
directions in Part regards the procedure to be followed by
the Educational Authorities while deciding the proposals in
consonance with the Government Resolution dated 6
February 2012, directions to the appellate
authorities/grievance redressal committees and directions to
the State Government to issue necessary instructions in
consonance with the legal position laid down by this Court
and accepted by the State Government would substantially
alleviate the hardship suffered by the Management and the
employees. It may also reduce the burden on the State
exchequer and curtail needless litigations involving the State
Authorities. It is to be noted that the directions in Part II of
the operative part of the judgment are issued after various
hearings with inputs from the Advocates for the parties, the
learned Advocate General and the officers of the State.”
17. Thus, the fundamental rationale for constituting the
Grievance Committee/Appellate Forum was to streamline the decision
making process in cases where the legal position is settled by judicial
pronouncements. In Komal’s case , the Division Bench took note of
the concerns expressed in Nitin Tadge’s case and observed that the
State Government had evolved a strategy in the form of the Government
Resolution to streamline the process for dealing with the petty issues,
and not to introduce any alternative forum to any existing statutory
forum. The Division Bench was of the view that the words used in the
Government Resolution viz., “appeal”, “evidence”, “hearing”, “decision”
etc. are not to be understood in legal parlance nor are they decisive
factors. The purport was not to confer quasi judicial powers. The Court
further observed that the words “hearing”, “arguments” and “evidence”
are not necessarily meant to suggest the trappings of quasi-judicial
functions. These are merely indicative of fair play which ordinarily
needs to be followed while discharging any administrative function. The
Court also took note of the fact that under the Government Resolution
the powers are not conferred upon the Committees to issue summons to
the witnesses, to administer an oath, to compel the attendance of
witnesses, to examine the witnesses on oath, to receive evidence, nor is
remedy of appeal or revision or review provided against the decisions of
the Committee. Thus, the jurisdiction of Civil Court or the other forum
21 wp 1775.26 judg.odt
has not been excluded expressly or implidely. Accordingly, it was held
that the Committees are not a creation of any forum under Articles
223-A and 223-B of the Constitution of India. The Committees were
said to be in the nature of an executive forum. The Division Bench then
examine the competence of the State Government to issue the said
Government Resolution. It refers to various provisions and the
judgments on the point and held that the State Government is
competent to issue the said Government Resolution as the Committees
constituted under the Government Resolution are exercising
administrative functions and therefore the question of violation of
principles of separation of powers would not arise.
18. In the case of Shri Agrasen Shikshan Santha , the
petitioner therein invited attention of the Division Bench to the M.E.P.S.
Rules to contend that the grievances/complaints enlisted in the
Government Resolution which are to be redressed by the Grievance
Committee are covered under the M.E.P.S. Act and Rules framed
thereunder. He placed before the Court a chart indicating relevant rules
to deal with the respective subject matter. He referred to Rule 8(2) to
point out that cases involving denial of approval of appointments of
teaching and non-teaching staff are taken up by the Education Office
(Primary and Secondary). Cases of refusal to upgrade part-time posts to
full-time posts of Higher Secondary Teachers are covered under Rules 7
and 8. The other rules were also referred to contend that adequate
provision is available to redress the grievance of the educational
institutions and the teaching and non teaching staff. The Court found
substance in the submissions and held that the matters which are to be
taken up and decided by the Grievance Redressal Committee under the
Government Resolution would relate to the powers exercisable under
the M.E.P.S. Rule and the Secondary School Code.
19. We have gone through the relevant rules to find that these
rules provide for the duties of the Management and the educational
authorities to implement the provisions of M.E.P.S. Act while making
appointments, granting approval to the appointments etc. Thus what is
provided is the authority to take a decision. There is, however, no
provision to address a contingency where a decision is not taken, firstly
22 wp 1775.26 judg.odt
within time and secondly in terms of law laid down by this Court. The
petitioners in the case of Nitin Tadge pointed out to the Court that
despite the legal position being declared and despite the State
Government not challenging the said decision, no follow up instructions
are given by the Government to implement the position of law. Their
concern was taken up by the Court and then the Court expressed its view
in following terms :
“35. The learned counsel for the Petitioners pointed out that
the core issue is that despite the legal position being declared
and though the State does not challenge the said decision, no
follow-up instructions are given by the Government to
implement the position of law. It is always open to the State if
a view taken in the judicial pronouncements by the High
Court is not acceptable to it then to challenge the same in a
higher forum. But if the State accept the legal position as laid
down by this Court, then the State Government must issue
necessary instructions to its officers to follow the legal
position. We do not say it is a general procedure of law, but in
matters governing approval of the Education Department,
the non-issuance of such instructions leads to maladies that
we have highlighted. The State will have to examine the legal
position laid down in the judgments and orders rendered by
this Court interpreting or setting aside any Government
Resolution or Circular or Instructions concerning the
tripartite relationship and if the State Government does not
challenge the said decision then, within a reasonable time, the
State should issue necessary Government Resolution/
Circular/ Instructions to align with the position of law so
declared and accepted.”
20. Thus, what is envisaged under the Government Resolution
is a mechanism for effective implementation of the provisions of the Act
and Rules, so also the law laid down by this Court. In doing so, the
petitioners therein suggested, and the Court accepted the creation of an
appellate forum against the orders passed by the officers of the
Education Department against the management and/or employees.
This creation of an appellate forum led the Court in Shri Agrasen
Shikshan Sanstha’s case to examine the scope of Article 162 of the
Constitution of India to hold that the State Legislature, in exercise of its
23 wp 1775.26 judg.odt
executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution, cannot create a
position that overlaps, with one, already governed by the Rules framed
under the M.E.P.S. Act or Rules or Secondary School Code. Accordingly
reference was made to Larger Bench.
21. Thus, what transpires is that there is a consistent
ignorance of the legal position at the hands of the Education
Department. Further the decision on the subject matter is not taken in
time. The aggrieved party therefore is required to approach the Court
to seek directions to decide the proposal in a stipulated time or to direct
the authorities to take a decision in accordance with law laid down by
this Court. These litigations are definitely avoidable and therefore
mechanism is created by way of the aforesaid Government Resolution.
The said mechanism, in our view, is helpful to effectively implement the
provisions of M.E.P.S. Act and Rules made thereunder so also to ensure
that the law laid down by this Court is followed in letter and spirit. So
far as the creation of Appellate Forum is concerned, the reference will
be answered in due course. The crux of the matter, however, is whether
the appellate authority under the said Government Resolution is
exercising appellate jurisdiction or is just performing supervisory
jurisdiction by scrutinizing the decision taken by respective authorities.
22. On the executive powers of the State Government the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bishambhar Dayal Chandra
Mohan and others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others ,
reported in (1982) 1 SCC 39 with connected matters, has elaborately
dealt with the scope under Article 162 of the Constitution of India and
while doing so it observed thus :
“2o. Even assuming that the impugned teleprinter
message is not relatable to the two Control Orders, the
State Government undoubtedly could, in exercise of the
executive power of the State, introduce a system of
verification on movement of wheat from the State of
Uttar Pradesh to various other States at the check-posts
on the border and place restrictions on inter-district
movement of wheat by traders on private account within
the State. The executive power of a modern State is not
capable of any precise definition. In Ram Jawaya Kapur
24 wp 1775.26 judg.odt
v State of Punjab Mukherjea, C.J., dealt with the scope of
Articles 73 and 162 of the Constitution. The learned Chief
Justice observed that neither of the two Articles contains
any definition as to what the executive function is or gives
an exhaustive enumeration of the activities which would
legitimately come within its scope. It was observed:
"Ordinarily the executive power connotes the residue of
governmental functions that remain after legislative and
judicial functions are taken away." It is neither necessary
nor possible to give an exhaustive enumeration of the
kinds and categories of executive functions which may
comprise both the formulation of the policy as well as its
execution. In other words, the State in exercise of its
executive power is charged with the duty and the
responsibility of carrying on the general administration
of the State. So long as the State Government does not go
against the provisions of the Constitution or any law, the
width and amplitude of its executive power cannot be
circumscribed. If there is no enactment covering a
particular aspect, certainly the Government can carry on
the administration by issuing administrative directions
or instructions, until the legislature makes a law in that
behalf. Otherwise, the administration would come to a
standstill.”
23. Further in the case of Naraindas Indurkhya Vs
State of M.P. , reported in (1974) 4 SCC 788 , reiterated the above
principles and held that the State Government could act in exercise of
the executive power of the State under Article 162 of the Constitution in
relation to any matter with respect to which State legislature has power
to make laws even if there was no legislation to support such executive
action.
24. The position of law as emrges is that the State in exercise
of its executive powers is charged with duty and responsibility of
carrying on general administration of the State, and so long as the State
Government does not go against the provisions of the Constitution or
any law, the width and amplitude of its executive power cannot be
circumscribed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further clarified that if there
is no enactment covering a particular aspect, the State Government can
carry on administration by issuing administrative directions or
instructions, until the legislature makes a law in that regard.
25 wp 1775.26 judg.odt
25. Learned Counsels appearing for the petitioners, however,
submitted that inclusion of officers of the Education Department as
members of the Grievance Redressal Committee may result in the
continuation of the very approach which has given rise to the present
spate of litigation. It is contended that such an arrangement may not
effectively address the grievances and may instead lead to further
disputes. Learned Counsels further pointed out that under various
enactments, including Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, the
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 and the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies
Act, 1960, dedicated Grievance Committee have been constituted. It
was, therefore, suggested that a similar mechanism should be
incorporated under the M.E.P.S. Act or Rules thereunder.
26. As such, we do not subscribe to the apprehension
expressed by the Counsels that the Grievance Committee consisting of
officials of the Education Department would not be an effective
mechanism. The Government Resolution under question provides for
the procedure to process the files. In addition, the Division Bench, in
the case of Nitin Tadge (supra) has issued certain directions for
proper implementation of the mechanism. There appears no reason why
should this arrangement not work. Nevertheless, since the Legislature,
under the aforesaid enactments, has considered it appropriate to
provide for a Grievance Redressal Committee, we are of the considered
opinion that the mechanism contemplated under the Government
Resolution would attain greater efficacy and permanence if it is
accorded statutory backing. Accordingly, we request the State
Government to take appropriate steps for incorporating suitable
provisions in this regard. We are further of the view that, until such
statutory framework is put in place, the mechanism created under the
Government Resolution for redressal of grievances of educational
institutions and their teaching and non-teaching staff shall operate and
be treated as directions/guidelines issued by this Court. The State
Government may also consider amending Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act
so as to enable aggrieved party to approach the School Tribunal for
26 wp 1775.26 judg.odt
redressal of their grievances against the decision taken by Education
Authorities in the subject matters enlisted in Government Resolution.
27. The Counsels appearing for both the sides have thus
invited our attention to Rules 41A of the M.E.P.S .Rules. The said Rule
has been amended and the transfer of a teacher from an unaided school
to a vacant post in a partially aided or aided school has been made
subject to the prior approval of the Commissioner (Education), State of
Maharashtra, Pune. Prior to the amendment, such approval was
accorded by the Education Officer or the Deputy Director. Learned
Counsel submits that there is no provision in the Government
Resolution to address the grievance against the decision on approval
taken by the Commissioner (Education). It was accordingly suggested
that an additional Grievance Redressal Committee be constituted at the
State level, to be headed by the Secretary of the Education Department,
Government of Maharashtra having officer not below the rank of
Superintendent in the office of the Secretary of the Education
Department, who shall function as the Member-Secretary. We
appreciate the concern expressed in this regard and deem it appropriate
to incorporate the necessary guidelines to address the same.
28. We also note that the provisions of the Government
Resolution are made applicable to the orders passed w.e.f. 01-01-2024.
We are of the view that in an appropriate case the Court may think to
relegate the matter to the Grievance Redressal Committee even where
the order has been passed prior to 01-01-2024 and if the matter is so
relegated to the Grievance Redressal Committee, it shall be processed in
accordance with the guidelines issued by us in the instant judgment.
Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order :
O R D E R
(i) Pending a legislative decision and the incorporation of
appropriate statutory provisions on the subject, the mechanism created
under the Government Resolution for redressal of grievances of
educational institutions and their teaching and non-teaching staff shall
operate and be treated as directions/guidelines issued by this Court.
27 wp 1775.26 judg.odt
(ii) In addition to Grievance Redressal Committee constituted by
Government Resolution dated 27-03-2024, the State Government shall
constitute an additional Grievance Redressal Committee at the State
level, to be headed by the Secretary of the Education Department,
Government of Maharashtra having officer not below the rank of
Superintendent in the office of the Secretary of the Education
Department, who shall function as the Member-Secretary.
(iii) The Grievance Redressal Committee/ Appellate Forum while
processing the complaint/grievance lodged by the aggrieved party shall
also examine the action/inaction of the officials in the light of the
provisions of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of
Transfer and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act
2005, particularly Section 10 thereof and shall take necessary action by
following the procedure laid down.
(iv) The petitioners herein shall approach the Grievance Redressal
Committee/Appellate forum within 06 weeks from today.
(v) The complaint/grievance so filed shall be decided in accordance
with the guidelines issued above.
(vi) The State Government shall issue consolidated directions to
process the files in accordance with the guidelines which we have
suggested and shall include the directions issued by this Court in Nitin
Tadge’s case.
(vii) The copy of the order shall be placed before the Chief Secretary,
Government of Maharashtra, for taking appropriate steps.
29. The petitions are disposed of in terms of above.
Judge Judge
Deshmukh
Signed by: Mr. S.Deshmukh
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 19/06/2026 19:27:21