SUDHA BHASKARARAO SAIKHEDE Vs. YASHODABAI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 'rule made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher in respondent no. 2 School which is administered and managed by the respondent No. 1 Society. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is a permanent assistant teacher and her service conditions are regulated by the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Rules made thereunder.

(3.) THE respondent No. 1 after serving a statement of allegations, called for explanation of the petitioner to the same and as the explanation was not found to be satisfactory, proceeded to constitute an Inquiry Committee to enquire into the alleged acts of misconduct. The constitution of the inquiry Committee is regulated by Rule 36 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition's of Service) Rules, 1981. Sub-rule (2) of rule 36 provides that the Inquiry Committee shall comprise of i) a nominee of the Management, ii) one member nominated by the employee from amongst the employees of the private school and iii) one member to be chosen by the Chief Executive Officer from the panel of teachers on whom state/national Award has been conferred. In the present case two fold objection is raised to the nomination of State Awardee Teacher who is chosen by the Chief Executive Officer. The objection raised by petitioner is to the effect that the State Awardee Teacher has crossed the age of 65 years and as such he is not eligible to be nominated on the Inquiry Committee. The second objection in regard to the State Awardee Teacher is that he is conducting two enquiries (more than one) at a time. Insofar as the Rule 36 is concerned, it does not disentitle the State Awardee/national Awardee Teacher who is above 65 years to be a member of an inquiry Committee and so also the said Rule does not lay down any restriction on the State/national Awardee Teacher in regard to the number of enquiries he could associate himself with at a given point of time. Despite the fact that Rule 36 does not provide any such limitation, the State government acting through its Under Secretary has issued a clarification dated 6-2-1986 addressed to the Director of Education, Maharashtra State, pune, clarifying therein the points raised for its opinion. The relevant points raised by the Director of Education and the clarification issued by the Government reads thus : (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) who should be taken on the panels? in addition to serving teachers, retired persons below the age of 65 years on whom National/state Awards were conferred should be taken on the panels. (3) what restrictions should be placed on such a person? an Awardee Teacher should not work on more than one Committee at a time" (4 ). . . . . . . . .