SANJAY ANANDA SALVE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1959 of 2013 who is employed as an Assistant Teacher in a School run by the seventh Respondent has approached this Court by this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus to strictly enforce Rule 45 of the Secondary Schools Code (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code") in Matoshri Savitribai Phule Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Nashik (for short "the said school") where he is employed. The grievance in this Petition is as regards the non implementation of the directions contained in the order dated 16th October 2010 issued by the Education Officer to the Head Master of the said school. The seventh Respondent is the institution which runs the said school and the sixth Respondent is the Head Master of the said school.

(2.) The Writ Petition No.8125 of 2013 has been filed by the seventh Respondent in the Writ Petition No.1959 of 2013. This Petition has been filed for challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 16th October 2010. As we have pointed out earlier, essentially the Writ Petition No.1959 of 2013 is for enforcement of the said order. In addition to the contentions raised in a reply in the companion Petition No.1959 of 2013, in this Petition, a reliance has been placed on the Government Resolution dated 4th February 2013. It provides that at the time of prayers in every school, the preamble under the Constitution shall be read. It also records that the preamble shall be displayed in the school. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment and order, we have made a reference to the parties as per their respective title in Writ Petition No.1959 of 2013.

(3.) It will be necessary to make a reference to the facts in brief. The Petitionerteacher has stated that he is a Buddhist . The Petitioner has been employed in the said school from the year 1996. On 12 December 2007, the Head Master issued a communication to the Petitioner pointing that at the time of singing of prayers in the school, the Petitioner does not stand with the folded hands and does not hold his hand in the front at the time of oath. The Petitioner replied on 24th December 2007 by pointing out that the prayer session of the school consists of three prayers. He stated that all the three prayers contain a praise for the God. He contended that he has freedom of expression as per the Article 19 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, he cannot be forced to stand with folded hands at the time when the prayers are sung. He alleged that singing of three prayers amounts to imparting religious education which is not permissible under Article 28(1) of the Constitution of India. On 11th February 2008, the Head Master addressed another communication to the Petitioner. It was contended therein that after having accepted a job of an Assistant Teacher, the Petitioner was bound by the conditions of the service and those conditions of service are nothing but reasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights of the Petitioner. The Petitioner responded by a letter dated 29th February 2008. He contended that as per the clause (9) of Rule 45 of the said Code, it is mandatory to commence the school with National Anthem. As regards oath, he stated that along with others, he always takes the oath. However, nobody can force him to hold his hand in the front at the time when oath is being administered. He stated that though he is of the opinion that the three prayers are religious in nature, he does not want to impose his opinion on other teachers but he should not be asked to stand with folded hands. He stated that the school is being run in the name of a great personality like Savitribai Phule for whom he had highest respect and he had no grievance against the school.