Case Note & Summary
The case involves two Letters Patent Appeals arising from Writ Petition No.3253/2009 filed by Ku. Panchasheela Patil challenging the decision of the Grievance Committee dated 26/6/2009 in Appeal No.21/2007 and the appointment order dated 16/3/2007 of Deepak Chaphale. The appellant in LPA No.143/2011 is Ku. Panchasheela Patil, and the appellant in LPA No.79/2011 is Deepak Chaphale. The respondents include the President/Secretary of Yavatmal Akhil Bharatiya Zilla Akhil Kunbi Samaj, the Headmistress of Savitribai Phule Junior College, and the Deputy Director of Education. A preliminary objection was raised by Mr. Kapil Deshmukh, counsel for respondent no.3 in LPA No.143/2011 and appellant in LPA No.79/2011, contending that the writ petition before the learned Single Judge was not maintainable, and consequently the Letters Patent Appeals were also not tenable. The court considered the objection and held that the writ petition was not maintainable because the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 provides a complete statutory mechanism for redressal of service disputes, including an appeal to the Tribunal. Therefore, the writ petition challenging the Grievance Committee's decision was not maintainable, and the Letters Patent Appeals were also dismissed as not maintainable.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Alternative Remedy - The writ petition challenging the decision of the Grievance Committee under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 was held not maintainable as the Act provides a complete statutory mechanism including an appeal to the Tribunal. The court held that the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy bars the writ jurisdiction. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition challenging the decision of the Grievance Committee under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 is maintainable when an alternative remedy of appeal is available under the Act.
Final Decision
The court upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the Letters Patent Appeals as not maintainable, holding that the writ petition itself was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy under the M.E.P.S. Act.
Law Points
- Writ petition not maintainable when alternative statutory remedy available
- Grievance Committee under M.E.P.S. Act has jurisdiction over service disputes of private school employees
- Letters Patent Appeal not maintainable if writ petition itself not maintainable
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (03) 155
LPA 143/2011 and LPA 79/2011 in WP 3253/2009(D)
Sunil B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
Mr. Shekhar S. Dhengale, Mr. Kailash S. Narwade, Mr. Kapil V. Deshmukh, Ms H.N. Jaipurkar
Ku. Panchasheela d/o Vaijnath Patil (in LPA 143/2011); Deepak S/o Shriram Chaphale (in LPA 79/2011)
The President/Secretary, Yavatmal Akhil Bharatiya, Zilla Akhil Kunbi Samaj; The Headmistress, Savitribai Phule Junior College; Deepak S. Chaphale (in LPA 143/2011); Ku. Panchasheela D/o. Baijnath Patil (in LPA 79/2011); The Deputy Director of Education
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Letters Patent Appeals against order in Writ Petition challenging decision of Grievance Committee and appointment order in a service dispute of a private school employee.
Remedy Sought
The appellant in LPA 143/2011 sought to challenge the decision of the Grievance Committee and the appointment order of the respondent.
Filing Reason
The writ petition was filed challenging the decision of the Grievance Committee dated 26/6/2009 in Appeal No.21/2007 and the appointment order dated 16/3/2007 of Deepak Chaphale.
Previous Decisions
The learned Single Judge had passed an order in Writ Petition No.3253/2009, which is under challenge in these appeals.
Issues
Whether the writ petition challenging the decision of the Grievance Committee under the M.E.P.S. Act is maintainable when an alternative remedy of appeal is available.
Submissions/Arguments
Mr. Kapil Deshmukh submitted that the writ petition was not maintainable as the M.E.P.S. Act provides a complete statutory mechanism including an appeal to the Tribunal, and therefore the Letters Patent Appeals are also not tenable.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ petition challenging the decision of the Grievance Committee under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 is not maintainable because the Act provides a complete statutory mechanism including an appeal to the Tribunal, and the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy bars the writ jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Kapil Deshmukh, learned Counsel, who appears for respondent no.3 in L.P.A. No.143/2011 and for appellant in L.P.A. No.79/2011, contending that a writ petition before a learned Single Judge of this Court, was not maintainable at all, in view of which, the present letter patent appeals would also not be tenable.
Procedural History
Writ Petition No.3253/2009 was filed by Ku. Panchasheela Patil challenging the decision of the Grievance Committee dated 26/6/2009 in Appeal No.21/2007 and the appointment order dated 16/3/2007. The learned Single Judge passed an order. Two Letters Patent Appeals were filed against that order. During the hearing of the appeals, a preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977:
