High Court
Facts
1 906-wp 3929-2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 3929 OF 2025Vitthal Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Through Its SecretaryGopalrao Tukaram Birajdar And Another.. PetitionersVersusMadhusudan Sunilrao Purne And Another.. RespondentsMr. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioners.Mr. Kishore J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.Mr. P. D. Patil, AGP for Respondent No. 2. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J. DATED : 26th MARCH, 2025. P. C. :- .Heard learned advocate Mr. Deshmukh for the petitioners,learned advocate Mr. Ghute Patil for respondent No. 1 and learnedA.G.P. for respondent No. 2.2.A short point involved in this petition is about jurisdiction of thelearned School Tribunal at Aurangabad to entertain and decide theappeal filed by respondent No. 1 – a teacher. It is the case of thepetitioner – management that, though the respondent No. 1 wasinitially appointed in a school at Aurangabad, subsequently, he came tobe transferred to school at Koral, District Osmanabad by order dated 1 of 6 2 906-wp 3929-2025.odt31.12.2020. The proposal was also sent to the respondent No. 2 forapproval of the transfer. However, the same came to be refused by theEducation Officer vide order dated 27.12.2022. However, the factremains that the posting of the respondent No. 1 is still at village Koral.The respondent No. 1 has even challenged his transfer by filing WritPetition No. 11578/2022 which is pending before this Court withoutany effective orders. When this was the position still the respondentNo. 1 filed an appeal before the learned School Tribunal at Aurangabadinstead of School Tribunal at Solapur. The petitioners therefore raisedan objection to the jurisdiction of the learned School Tribunal by filingapplication below Exh. 13 in the appeal. The learned Presiding Officer,however, by impugned judgment and order rejected the applicationholding that the learned Tribunal at Aurangabad has the jurisdiction.The petitioners are thus before this Court. 3.The learned advocate Mr. Deshmukh for the petitionersvehemently argued the petition. He submits that, the facts are notdisputed. Since the respondent No. 1 is posted at Koral, the jurisdictionwould be with Solapur Tribunal. He points out notification dated28.03.2023 showing that the Additional School Tribunal, Solapur ishaving jurisdiction over districts Solapur and Osmanabad. He furthersubmits that, in view of Section 8 of the Maharashtra Employees of 2 of 6
Legal Reasoning
4 906-wp 3929-2025.odtapproval of transfer and the same came to be rejected by the EducationOfficer. He submits that, while rejecting the proposal of transfer theEducation Officer has clearly given the reasons that, (i) no post ofAssistant Teacher is available in the said school, (ii) the AssistantTeacher cannot be posted as Headmaster, (iii) there is no staff patternapproved of the said school for want of information of the schools and(iv) the school is closed as there is no sufficient number of students forthe year 2022-2023. He thus submits that, since his transfer was notapproved, he tried to join the school at Aurangabad where he was notallowed to join and thus, the cause of action has arisen at Aurangabad.Not allowing to join at Aurangabad amounts to otherwise termination.He submits that, the learned School Tribunal has rightly considered allthese aspects and passed the order. He prays for rejection of the writpetition.5.The learned A.G.P. submits that, in view of Section 8 of the saidAct, the Government has already issued notification and the jurisdictionis also stated in the said notification. He prays for appropriate order bepassed.6.As already observed, there is no dispute as regards facts of thecase. The only thing that needs to be considered is as to whether therespondent No. 1 has any reason to try to join at school at Aurangabad. 4 of 6 5 906-wp 3929-2025.odtIn the course of argument the learned advocate for respondent No. 1accepts that, there is no order passed by the management or there is nodirection by the Education Officer directing him to join at Aurangabad.This Court thus finds that, when there is no question of joining atAurangabad, there is no question of getting the jurisdiction to theTribunal at Aurangabad. 7.On going through the order it is seen that, the learned SchoolTribunal in paragraph No. 7 has considered Section 20 of the Code ofCivil Procedure (for short “C.P.C.”). By considering Section 20 of theC.P.C. it is observed that, the appellant or the party has the flexibility tochoose a Court that is most convenient or beneficial for their case. ThisCourt finds that, as Section 8 of the special statues provides for specialpower, there is no need to resort to the provision of general Act i.e.C.P.C. Even in Section 20 of the C.P.C. jurisdiction is provided only toCourts as stated in that Section. In any case, it is not the case of therespondent No. 1 that he has approached the learned School Tribunalbecause the school or the management is carrying business or residingin the jurisdiction within the jurisdiction falling with the learned SchoolTribunal. 8.This Court finds that, the order passed by the learned Tribunal isagainst the law. The Court could not have resorted to Section 20 of the 5 of 6
Arguments
3 906-wp 3929-2025.odtPrivate Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short“the said Act”), the State Government has the power to constitute oneor more Tribunals and divide the jurisdiction of each Tribunal in suchnotification. He thus submits that, the notification is issued underSection 8 of the said Act. The learned Tribunal has committed an errorin holding that the learned School Tribunal at Aurangabad hasjurisdiction. He thus prays for quashing of the impugned order holdingthat the appeal is not maintainable on the ground of territorialjurisdiction. The learned advocate for the petitioners relies upon thejudgment in the case of the State of Maharashtra (Deleted) and ors. Vs.Zilla Krida Sankul Karmachari Sanghatana and ors.14.The learned advocate Mr. Ghute Patil for respondent No. 1vehemently opposes the petition. His case is that, the respondent No. 1is appointed in the school at Aurangabad. Though he was transferred,he was posted in a school receiving grants in aid. His services wereproperly approved by order dated 30.12.2020. He came to betransferred to the school at Koral which is a school not receiving grantin aid and thus the transfer order itself is illegal. Against the order oftransfer he immediately made representation to the respondent No. 2pointing out that, he could not have been transferred to the unaidedschool. He further submits that, even the school had sent proposal for12022(4) Mh.L.J. 167. 3 of 6
Decision
6 906-wp 3929-2025.odtC.P.C. This Court finds that, the impugned order deserves to bequashed and set aside. It is held that, the learned School Tribunal atAurangabad has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the appeal filed byrespondent No. 1. In view of this, this Court allows the writ petition interms of prayer clause (B). The writ petition stands disposed of.( KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) P.S.B. 6 of 6