Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Madhukar Bijaramji Sawarkar, as Secretary and Chief Executive Officer of Pipla Education Society, challenged the order dated 23.4.1990 passed by the Director of Education (respondent no.1) directing reinstatement of respondent no.3, Dharmaji Chintaman Karvekar, who was the Head Master of Vikas Vidyalaya. The respondent no.3 was appointed on 17.3.1988 and a charge sheet was served on him. Before any final action could be taken in the departmental enquiry, the Director of Education, in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Management) Act, 1976, appointed an Administrator (Deputy Education Officer Mr. Marathe) to manage the school. The Administrator terminated the services of respondent no.3 on 10.4.1989. Respondent no.3 filed an appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 before the Director of Education, who allowed the appeal and directed reinstatement. The petitioner contended that the Administrator was a statutory authority and not the 'management' as defined under the MEPS Act, hence the appeal under Section 9 was not maintainable. The respondent no.3 argued that the Administrator acted on behalf of the management and the appeal was maintainable. The High Court analyzed the provisions of both Acts and held that the Administrator appointed under Section 3 of the Management Act is a statutory authority with independent powers, not falling within the definition of 'management' under Section 2(10) of the MEPS Act. Therefore, the appeal under Section 9 was not maintainable against the Administrator's order. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Director's order, and upheld the termination by the Administrator.
Headnote
A) Education Law - Termination by Administrator - Section 3 of Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Management) Act, 1976 - Section 9 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - The respondent no.3, a Head Master, was terminated by an Administrator appointed under Section 3 of the Management Act. The Director of Education directed reinstatement under Section 9 of the MEPS Act. The High Court held that the Administrator is a statutory authority and not the 'management' as defined under the MEPS Act, hence an appeal under Section 9 is not maintainable. The termination by the Administrator was valid and the Director's order was set aside. (Paras 1-10) B) Education Law - Definition of 'Management' - Section 2(10) of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - The term 'management' under the MEPS Act refers to the school management as defined, which does not include an Administrator appointed under the Management Act. The Administrator acts independently and not as a delegate of the management. Therefore, the appeal remedy under Section 9 is not available against the Administrator's order. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of termination passed by an Administrator appointed under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Management) Act, 1976 can be challenged by an employee by filing an appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 23.4.1990 passed by the Director of Education is quashed and set aside. The termination of respondent no.3 by the Administrator is upheld.
Law Points
- Termination by Administrator appointed under Section 3 of MEIM Act is valid
- Appeal under Section 9 of MEPS Act not maintainable against Administrator's order
- Administrator acts as statutory authority not as management
