KONDIBA DATTARAO MIRASHE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Nanded Municipal Council, which has been converted into Municipal Corporation with effect from 25th March 1997, runs several schools within the city of Nanded. The Divisional Revenue Commissioner and the Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Aurangabad, under which fell the Municipal Council, Nanded, was pleased to accord sanction for creation of 3 posts of Head Masters alongwith certain other posts of Assistant teachers, peons, Chowkidars, etc. in the primary schools run by the Municipal Council, nanded, vide letter dated 16th June, 1984. The qualifications required for the post of Head Master of the school as laid down in the said letter was B. A. B. Ed. The petitioner who possessed the required qualification of B. A. B. Ed. was selected and appointed as Head Master of Sangamwadi primary school run by the respondent No. 4 on 18th June, 1984. The Deputy Director of Education, who is the Respondent No. 2 herein, on 6th February, 1991 granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner, but as an untrained teacher, from the date of his appointment and the petitioner was directed to pass the D. Ed. course within a period of five years. The Education Officer, who is the Respondent No. 3 herein, on the basis of the letter of the Deputy Director of Education dated 6th February, 1991, also granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner as an untrained teacher on the condition that the petitioner should complete the D. Ed. course within a period of five years. Relying on the said two communications, the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Nanded, who is the Respondent No. 4 herein, issued a letter dated 27th March, 1991, to the petitioner informing the petitioner that he should pass D. Ed, course within a period of five years and that as the petitioner did not possess the D. Ed, qualification, he would be treated as an untrained teacher and would be entitled to get salary only as an untrained teacher and not as the trained teacher.

(2.) IN this petition, the petitioner has challenged the letter dated 27th march, 1991, issued by the Respondent No. 4 in pursuance of the directions issued by the Respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri S. R. Barlinge, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged the following points in support of the petition.

(3.) SECTION 3 of the M. E. P. S. Act lays down that it shall apply to all private schools in the State of Maharashtra, whether receiving any grant - in - aid from the State Government or not. A "private school" as defined in sub - section (20)of Section 2 of the M. E. P. S. Act means a recognised school established or administered by a Management, other than the Government or a local authority. Thus the M. E. P. S. Act is not applicable to the schools run by the local authority, like the Respondent No. 4. The M. E. P. S. Rules, 1981, framed under Section 16 of the M. E. P. S. Act therefore, do not apply to the schools run by the local authorities like the Respondent No. 4.