GODAVARI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA GONDI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petitions arise from a common order dtd. 27/11/2025 passed by the Divisional Deputy Director of Education, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar, whereby an inquiry committee consisting of certain Education Officers and a Deputy Education Officer came to be constituted to conduct an inquiry against the present petitioners. Since both petitions challenge the same order, arise out of the same set of facts and involve identical questions of law, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India contending that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction, contrary to statutory provisions governing service conditions of employees of private aided schools, violative of binding Government policy and settled judicial precedents, and is based entirely on complaints made by a third party who has no legal nexus whatsoever either with the petitioner educational institution or with the Education Department of the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 821 of 2026 is an educational institution registered as a public trust and running three grant-in-aid schools imparting education to several students and receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1420 of 2026 is an Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalna, who joined the said post on 23/2/2022 and worked on the said State post till 9/6/2025. Both petitioners are aggrieved by the constitution of the inquiry committee which, according to them, is founded solely on complaints made by one Manish Govindrao Bhale, who is admittedly not connected with the institution, not a member of the managing trust, not an employee, not a student or parent, and not an officer of the Education Department.

(2.) It is the consistent case of the petitioners that the said complainant is a habitual complainant who has been filing repeated complaints against various educational institutions and their employees and thereafter attempting to pressurize institutions and public servants by creating administrative hurdles in approvals, salary releases and service regularization. It is brought on record that in earlier instances, approvals of teachers working in the petitioner institution were cancelled allegedly on the basis of complaints made by the same complainant and subsequently such actions were challenged before the School Tribunal and this Court, and in several matters directions were issued for release of salary and reinstatement after recording findings that the appointments were legal and valid. The petitioners have also placed on record that the complainant had made allegations even against officers of the Education Department including Education Officers and departmental action was initiated against them, which again came to be challenged before judicial forums. The petitioners have therefore, attempted to demonstrate a pattern whereby the said complainant repeatedly lodges complaints against institutions, employees and officers without any legal basis, resulting in serious administrative consequences and forcing the affected persons to approach judicial forums for redressal. The petitioners further contend that the department itself was aware of such conduct and in certain cases had taken a conscious decision not to entertain complaints made by the said complainant in future, yet the impugned order has been issued solely relying upon his complaint and police correspondence arising out of a criminal dispute between the complainant and the petitioner Education Officer.

(3.) In so far as the petitioner Education Officer is concerned, it is specifically contended that the complainant had approached him and demanded an amount of Rs.25,00,000.00 for withdrawal of complaints and upon refusal, false complaints were made against him. The petitioner officer thereafter lodged a complaint dtd. 27/7/2025, which resulted in registration of Crime No. 517 of 2025 at Jalna Taluka Police Station. It is further stated that thereafter the complainant lodged a counter complaint against the petitioner officer and on the basis of correspondence between the police authorities and the Education Department, the Divisional Deputy Director proceeded to constitute the impugned inquiry committee. According to the petitioners, the entire action is legally unsustainable as it is founded upon the complaint of a stranger and is directly contrary to the Government Resolution dtd. 14/10/2019 issued by the General Administration Department of the State of Maharashtra which specifically directs all government authorities not to entertain complaints made by third party persons, social workers or individuals who are not directly affected or who have not suffered any legal injury.