SMITA ASHOK PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. The Respondents have filed Affidavits in Reply and the Petitioner has filed her Rejoinder. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.

(2.) The facts in the present matter reveal the plight of a teacher, caught in the cross fire of an inefficient and irresponsible administration. This is perhaps the only way to describe the events that have transpired in the manner of appointments of teachers by the 3rd Respondent Management, totally unchecked by the State Education Authorities responsible for regulating them, each blaming the other for their respective failures is deplorable. Consequently, it is only the teacher who must bear the consequences of the casual and careless approach adopted by these Authorities. The provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools ' (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act 1977 ( "MEPS Act ") and Rules made thereunder in respect of appointments of employees are simple enough and do not require the study of Rocket science. Timely compliance of the simple procedure specified by law, in the appointment process could have prevented the matter to have reached this stage.

(3.) The Petitioner belongs to Open category and is qualified as M.A. and B.Ed. (Sociology). The 1st Respondent is the Education Department of the State, and the 2nd Respondent is the Deputy Director of Education of the Kolhapur Region. The 3rd Respondent is an Educational Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act running the 4th Respondent College.