Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nitin Jaysing Salunkhe, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking directions to the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Satara to grant approval to his appointment as an Assistant Teacher in Respondent No.5 School, a private aided school. He also sought quashing of the order dated 23rd February 2024 by which the Education Officer rejected the proposal for approval. Additionally, he prayed for consequential directions to include his name in Shalarth Pranali and release salary benefits. The Court noted that the petition involved typical disputes between school management, employees, and education authorities, including issues of seniority, surplus declaration, absorption, approval to appointment, transfer, pension, salary, reservation roster, staffing pattern, condonation of service gaps, Shalarth identity, workload, and upgradation. The Court observed that all these issues necessarily involve disputed questions of fact and are covered under the Maharashtra Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977. The Court held that such matters are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and directed the petitioner to approach the Maharashtra Private Schools Tribunal under Section 9 of the Act for appropriate relief. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh proceeding before the Tribunal.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Disputed Questions of Fact - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The High Court declined to entertain a writ petition seeking approval of appointment as it involved disputed questions of fact regarding the validity of the appointment and the reasons for rejection by the Education Officer. Held that such matters are not amenable to writ jurisdiction and the petitioner must approach the Maharashtra Private Schools Tribunal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977. (Paras 1-3) B) Education Law - Approval of Appointment - Alternative Remedy - Section 9 of the Maharashtra Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 - The Court observed that issues such as approval to appointment, seniority, surplus declaration, absorption, and other service conditions involve disputed facts and are covered under the Act. Held that the petitioner should avail the remedy before the School Tribunal instead of invoking writ jurisdiction. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact relating to approval of appointment of a teacher in a private aided school.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh proceeding before the Maharashtra Private Schools Tribunal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 for appropriate relief.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 not suitable for disputed questions of fact
- Alternative remedy before Maharashtra Private Schools Tribunal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act
- 1977
