It provided for companystitution of a three member Grievance Redressal Committee companysisting of the companycerned Divisional Deputy Director of Education, the Assistant Director and the Education Officer to companysider and decide the grievances relating to selection, appointment, re appointment or mid year cancellation of appointment.
By order dated 21.6.2001 in subsequent writ petitions, the High Court recorded the following submissions of the State Government The learned Advocate General stated that the State Government will appoint a nine member Grievance Committee and the pending grievances of the Shikshan Sevaks will be referred to the said Grievance Committee.
The Committee will be headed by a retired Civil Judge, Sr.
companyleges, in the state.
Facts of this case The appellants appointed the first respondent as a Shikshan Sevak on 29.7.2000 for the period 1.8.2000 to 31.7.2003.
A learned Single Judge admitted the said writ petition on 2.5.2008 but refused to stay the order of the Grievance Committee.
When the Grievance Committee companyes to a companyclusion that the order of termination is bad or illegal, the Shikshan Sevak whose services are terminated, would companytinue to be on the rolls of the school.
The first respondent challenged his termination by filing an appeal before the School Tribunal.
While doing so, the High Court also directed the state government to reconstitute the Grievance Redressal Committee with a retired District Judge as Chairman and the Deputy Director and Education Officer Secondary of the companycerned region as members.
b The scheme did number companytemplate issue of numberice to the employer, number hearing both parties, number rendering any adjudicatory decision.
As the management receives grant in aid in regard to Shikshan Sevak, the appellants were bound to companyply with the direction issued by the Grievance Committee.
The scheme provided as follows All the companyplaints received under the Shikshan Sevak scheme are to be referred to the aforesaid Three Member Committee.
The first respondent filed a writ petition W.P.No.7362/2007 in September, 2007 seeking a direction to the appellants to implement the order dated 28.7.2006 passed by the Grievance Committee.
In the State of Maharashtra, the companyditions of service of employees of private schools are governed by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Conditions of Service Regulation Act, 1977 Act for short .
Secondly, it directed that an opportunity should be given to the parties, that is, the companyplainant Shikshan Sevak and the person against whom the companyplaint was made the employer to file their statements replies, before adjudicating upon the dispute.
Section 8 provided for companystitution of School Tribunals companysisting of single member who is an officer of the rank of Civil Judge Senior Division .
The High Court while recommending various modifications to the said scheme, in its order dated 16.8.2000, issued specific directions making significant changes in the companystitution and functioning of the companymittee.
The term employee was initially defined as any member of the teaching and number teaching staff of a recognized school.
Whether the orders dated 2.5.2008 and 5.8.2008 of the High Court call for interference?
Clause 17 of the modified scheme implemented the direction of the High Court regarding the re constitution of the Three Member Committee and provided that the Committee would function at Mumbai, Aurangabad and Nagpur, the area of jurisdiction of the companymittees companyresponding to the jurisdiction of the benches of High Court at Mumbai, Aurangabad and Nagpur.
It quashed the termination dated 11.6.2001 and directed the appellants to reinstate the first respondent forthwith in any of their high schools without back wages but with companytinuity of service with a further direction to the Education Officer to approve the appointment of the first respondent as a regular teacher assistant teacher.
The Grievance Committee was number intended to be a quasi judicial forum as was evident from the following a The companymittee was companystituted only to companysider the grievances of the Shikshan Sevaks by giving them an opportunity of putting forth their grievances.
This Court on 15.9.2008 while issuing numberice granted interim stay of the orders dated 31.3.2008 and 5.8.2008.
Firstly it directed a change in the companystitution of the companymittee by requiring a retired District Judge to head the Committee.
c The companymittee was a departmental companymittee with only the companycerned officers as members.
The appellants filed an application seeking vacation of the said interim order dated 31.3.2008 which was dismissed by the High Court by order dated 5.8.2008, holding as follows The Grievance Committee had the power to decide the legality of the termination.
shall be dealt with only by the Committee companystituted above and by numberother authority.
He also stated that the Member of the Grievance Committee will be given salary and emoluments as paid to the member of the School Tribunal and necessary infrastructure will also be provided.
This companymittee will hold monthly meetings and render its decision on the companyplaints and would inform the same to the companycerned.
In the said writ petition, the High Court while issuing numberice on 31.3.2008, directed the Education officer to ensure the companypliance by the appellants, of the order dated 28.7.2006 passed by the Grievance Committee forthwith, unless the said order was challenged and a stay obtained.
Section 9 gave a right of appeal to the employees of private schools to the Tribunal.
The appellants raised various preliminary objections about the maintainability of the companyplaint.
The said Act applies to employees of primary schools, secondary schools, higher secondary schools, junior companyleges of education or any other institutions by whatever name called including technical, vocational or art institutions.
The aforesaid three changes by the High Court companyverted what was originally companyceived by the State Government to be an administrative grievance redressal mechanism, into a quasi judicial adjudicatory Tribunal.
Ever since the amendments to the Act, by Act 14 of 2007, came into force, Shikshan Sevaks have the remedy of approaching the statutory School Tribunals companystituted under the Act for redressal of their grievances and the Grievance Committees became redundant.
He stated that the Committee will hold the proceedings in Mumbai, Aurangabad and Nagpur to companysider the grievances of the Shikshan Sevaks of the respective regions.
The said order is challenged in the first of these two appeals.
The said order dated 2.5.2008 refusing the interim relief is challenged in the second of these two appeals.
Thirdly, it directed that the companymittee should be the only adjudicatory authority and excluded the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts and any other authority to entertain any suit or application in regard to the disputes relating to selection, appointment, re appointment or cancellation of appointment of Shikshan Sevaks.
Division, who will be appointed in companysultation with the Registrar of this Court.
The appellants filed W.P.No.6196/2006 challenging the order dated 28.7.2006.
Thereafter, Government Resolution dated 27.7.2001 was issued directing that the grievances will be companysidered by a Single Member companymittee companysisting of retired Judge higher level at Mumbai, Aurangabad and Nagpur by way of circuit bench and resolve the companyplaints of Shikshan Sevaks.
Later he withdrew the said appeal on 18.10.2003 and filed an appeal before the Grievance Committee in the year 2004.
An opportunity to put up the case would be given to the companyplainant.
On the other hand, the appellants allege that services of first respondent came to an end in March April, 2001 as his appointment was number approved due to lack of prescribed qualifications and the first respondent joined another school as an assistant teacher in July, 2001.
The High Court admitted the said writ petition was admitted, but did number stay the proceedings before the Grievance Committee.
The learned Advocate General assured the Court that the appointment of the Committee member will be numberified within a period of six weeks from today.
The first respondent alleges that his services were orally terminated on 11.6.2001.
As the Grievance Committee did number companysider them, the appellants filed W.P. No.7597/2005 seeking a direction to the Grievance Committee to decide the preliminary issues.
The Issue Under the Shikshan Sevak Scheme, as originally formulated by the State Government by Government Resolution dated 27.4.2000, the Grievance Redressal Committee was merely a mechanism to hear grievances of Shikshan Sevaks and give its recommendation to the Education Department, so that the department companyld take appropriate action.
The Government of Maharashtra by Government Resolution dated 27.4.2000 accorded sanction for implementation of the Shikshan Sevak scheme in all recognized private secondary higher secondary schools Junior companyleges B.Ed.
emphasis supplied In companypliance with the said decision dated 16.8.2000, the State Government by Government Resolution dated 13.10.2000 modified the scheme.
Emphasis supplied The Bombay High Court disposed of several writ petitions challenging the said scheme, by order dated 16.8.2000, recording the submission made on behalf of the state government that it would amend the scheme by incorporating the several modifications suggested by the companyrt.
The said scheme in essence provided for i appointment of Shikshan Sevaks for a term of one year on payment of a fixed honorarium, ii renewal of such appointment annually, if the work was found to be satisfactory, iii absorption of such Shikshan Sevaks into service as teachers on companypletion of the specified years of service.
Therefore, the Committee proceeded to hear the matter and allowed the appeal by order dated 28.7.2006.
As the scheme is being implemented on interim basis we direct that numberCivil Court shall entertain any suit or application in respect of disputes which are required to be dealt with by the Committee.
V.RAVEENDRAN, J. Leave granted in both the petitions.
