PIPLA EDUCATION SOCIETYSAONER Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Shelat, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents No. 1 to 3.

(2.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31-12-1997 whereby respondent No. 2/ the Deputy Director of Education has exercised the power under clause 97. 2 of Secondary School Code and imposed 25% penal cut on non-salary grant payable to the petitioner/society for the year 1997-98.

(3.) Mr. Shelat, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the instant case one Shri D. C. Karvekar at the relevant time was Headmaster. The school was derecognized and thereafter the services of Mr. Karvekar came to be terminated by the Management. It is further contended that against the order of termination Mr. Karvekar has filed appeal under section 9 of the Maharashtra employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. It is contended that Mr. Karvekar has also made an application for grant of stay to the order of termination, however, that request has not been accepted by the Tribunal. It is contended that during the pendency of the appeal the Deputy Director of education only on the basis of the communication by the State Government, without any authority of law, directed the petitioner to allow Mr. Karvekar to join his duties as headmaster. It is submitted that under clause 97. 2 of the Code it is the deputy Director who alone is entitled to exercise power and is further entitled to issue directions to the Management. However, in the instant case, even as per the averments in the submissions filed on behalf of the State it is clear that though the direction is issued by the Deputy Director of Education, same is only on the basis of the communication of the State Government and therefore, the direction is not that of the Deputy Director of Education himself but issued at the behest of State government which is impermissible in law.