In a writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court against orders dated 28-06-2017, 28-09-2017 by the Director of Education, Pune, Maharashtra (respondent 2), as well as an order dated 06-10-2017 by the Minister of School Education, Mumbai, Maharashtra (Minister), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Siddheshwar S. Thombre quashed the impugned orders and directed the Education Officer to verify infrastructure facilities in the petitioner’s educational institution.
Rameshwr Education Society (petitioner), an educational institution registered under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 and the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The petitioner was running Shri Rameshwar Secondary, Higher Secondary School, as well as a junior college. The Trust elections were held every five years, for which change reports were submitted. The Managing Committee, in favour of which the last change report was submitted, was presently running the institution.
By the impugned order dated 28-06-2017, respondent 2 appointed an Administrator over Rameshwar Arts, Commerce, and Science Junior College. The petitioner only came to know of the same from the newspaper dated 30-06-2017. The Education Officer, Jalna, submitted a report dated 05-09-2015 to the Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad, which revealed that the Education Officer had submitted a report dated 25-11-2016 to the Director of Education, Pune, pursuant to which the appointment was made.
Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed before the State Government, and the Director of Education directed the Divisional Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad, to submit names for the appointment of an Administrator. Hence, a four-member Committee under the supervision of the Block Education Officer was recommended. By the impugned order dated 28-09-2017, the State Government appointed an Administrative Committee, exercising powers under Section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Management) Act, 1976 (Act). In the hearing of the aforementioned appeal, the Minister, by an order dated 06-10-2017, confirmed the appointment of the Administrator. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present petition.
The petitioner submitted that, by an order dated 13-11-2017, this Court granted interim relief, after which the Administrator did not take charge, and the petitioner continued to run the school.
The Court perused Section 3 of the Act, and found it evident that authorities are required to pass an order only if there is a breach of the provisions. It was also stated that the reports did not disclose any illegality or irregularity in the management of the College, which would invoke the provisions of Section 3(4) of the Act.
The Court stated that, merely because there was a dispute in management that resulted in several change reports being filed, an Administrator could not be appointed. It was noted that the authorities had inferred an internal dispute solely because of multiple change reports. Further, the Court said that the petitioner’s contention that the action was taken only because of political rivalry required consideration since the impugned action was done without any material to justify the exercise of powers under Section 3(4).
It was found that the Minister had merely recorded the contentions without assigning any reasons for confirming the order. The Court said that the order was cryptic, as it only stated that the educational atmosphere was improper and that it affected the public interest, but it gave no cogent reasons for that conclusion. Thus, the Court quashed and set aside the orders dated 28-06-2017, 28-09-2017, and 06-10-2017.
Lastly, the Court directed the Education Officer to verify the school’s infrastructure facilities and to point out any deficiencies to the educational institution, granting an opportunity to rectify them.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. N.B. Khandare (Sr. Adv), Mr. D.J. Choudhary
For Respondents – Mr. R.B. Dhaware
