STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SHOBHA VITTHAL KOLTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter was on board for final hearing for confirmation of interim relief. Considering the narrow controversy and as reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 4, the main petition was taken up for final hearing. Notices on respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were not served. However, considering the controversy, notice on them is dispensed with. A few facts may be mentioned. The State has filed the present petition to challenge the order dated 12-11-2003 and 2-6-2004 passed by the Acting Chairman, Maharashtra State human Rights Commission. The respondent no. 4 is the father of the Respondent No. 1, a teacher working in the school run by respondent No. 3 Society. From the record and the reply filed by Education Officer, Zilla parishad, it appears that Respondent No. 1 is the wife of Head Master of the School. Respondent no. 4 had filed complaint before the maharashtra State Human Rights Commission which was numbered as SHRC-09/2002/cr-1581/adm/803. By communication addressed to Education Officer, the Petitioners were informed that the complaint had been received from respondent No. 4 and that the Acting chairperson had passed the following order.

(2.) RESPONDENT no. 4 thereafter filed one more complaint which was numbered as shrc-05/2003/cr-978/legal. An order came to be passed on 12-11-2003. Some facts which are set out in the order are required to be reproduced as that would have a bearing on the matter. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:

(3.) IT is the case of the Petitioner that the Commission itself in its order dated 21-4-2003 had held that the subject matter of the complaint does not fall within the jurisdiction of the commission and thus once it had so held that it had no jurisdiction it acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the complaint and directing the Education Officer to grant approval. It is also set out that the commission does not have jurisdiction to deal with the matter in respect of grant of approval or appointment to secondary schools since there is a special act namely Maharashtra Employees of Private schools Act, 1976 under which remedy was available and consequently the orders of the acting Chairperson are without jurisdiction. On behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 4, a reply has been filed. It is set out that it is not open for the Education Officer after having stated before Human Rights Commission that necessary approval will be granted to the appointment of respondent No. 1 according to law to raise such a contention and the education Officer is estopped from challenging the same. The contention of the respondent is also that the Petitioner has not considered the peculiar facts of the case and that though the petitioner was called upon to grant approval, that has not been considered. It is also set out that the right to life includes right to livelihood i. e. Employment and therefore, it was within the jurisdiction of the Commission to decide the said issue and the orders passed therefore, being within jurisdiction, the Petitioner is bound to comply with the said orders. It is not necessary for this court to go into various other aspects of the matter.