MANGALSINGH AMARSINGH RATHOD Vs. MAHATMA PHULE SHIKSHAN SANSTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsels for the parties.

(2.) The question to be considered and answered is whether the nominee of the Head in terms of Rule 36(2)(b)(ii) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short hereinafter 'MEPS Rules'), on the Enquiry Committee, which has to be formed amongst the employees of any private school, can be a 5 retired/former employee of a school. The request of the petitioner, who was the Head of the institution for appointing a retired employee, has been rejected.

(3.) Mr. Dhore, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that considering the purport and object of Rule 36(2)(b)(ii) of the MEPS Rules, which permits the Head to nominate a person to be a member of the Enquiry Committee, is to ensure a reasonable and fair opportunity in the matter of balancing the composition of the Committee, it would be permissible for the Head, facing an enquiry, to nominate a former/retired employee on the Enquiry Committee. He further submits that considering the fact that the enquiry may go on for a number of days, it would be difficult for a serving/current employee to effectively work on the Committee, as he would have to, at times, seek leave from his parent institution and so also permission to participate in the enquiry, which may or may not be granted, thereby hampering the working of the Committee, the nomination of a former/retired employee, would be apt and proper, for the effective functioning of the Committee itself. It is also his contention that since the learned Full Bench, in Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Awasari (BK) Vs. Ramesh Bhimrao Narayankar and others 2016 SCC Online Bom 562 while considering Clause 36(2)(a)(iii) and 36(2)(b)(iii) which permits 5 State/National awardee teacher to be one of the members to be chosen to the Disciplinary Committee, has held that such a person could also be retired teacher, the same reasoning and logic would be applicable to the member to be nominated by the Head/employee to the Enquiry Committee in terms of Rule 36(2)(b)(ii) of the MEPS Rules. He further 10 submits that since the nomination by the Head of an employee, is for the purpose of balancing the composition of the Committee, a purposeful interpretation, should be given to the provision. Reliance is placed upon Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni Band and others 1983 (1) SCC 124 and 15 K.B. Khatavkar Vs. S. Taki Beligrami (1971) 73 Bom.L.R. 570 as well as The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. The Management and others (1973) 1 SCC 813, which dilate upon how a beneficial legislation has to be interpreted, to support his contention.