LI Network
Published on: December 04, 2023 at 12:41 IST
The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court recently invalidated a state government order appointing an administrator over an Ashram School in Nanded District.
The court’s decision stemmed from allegations that one of the teachers had secured employment elsewhere with the alleged connivance of the headmaster.
A division bench comprising Justice Mangesh S Patil and Justice Neeraj P Dhote ruled that the order was unsustainable as the reason for the administrator’s appointment did not align with the circumstances specified in clause 3.2 (Appointment of Administrator) of the Ashram School Code.
The court observed, “Ex facie, the allegations about a teacher having worked at two places to the knowledge of the headmaster is a circumstance not contemplated in any of these clauses. Even the impugned communication does not expressly mention as to under which of these categories alleged misconduct of the teacher and the headmaster would fall.”
The Deputy Secretary, Other Backward Bahujan Welfare Department, who issued the order, was deemed to lack the authority to appoint an administrator under the Ashram School Code read with Section 3 of the Educational Institute Management Act, 1976, according to the court.
The communication from the state government, dated August 21, 2023, directed the appointment of the Regional Deputy Director, Other Backward Bahujan Welfare Department, as an administrator over the petitioner’s school and requested a proposal for the cancellation of the school’s permission. Mataji Educational Institution, the school management, filed a writ petition challenging this communication.
Advocate RJ Godbole, representing the petitioners, argued that only specific authorities, as outlined in clause 3.2 of the Ashram School Code, had the power to appoint an administrator. The Deputy Secretary, who issued the impugned communication, lacked this authority.
Godbole contended that the alleged misconduct of one teacher, even if connived by the headmaster, did not warrant such a drastic action.
The court was urged to consider that the alleged connivance occurred when the teacher, despite being engaged in the school, secured other employment for a period.
The court emphasized that neither the impugned order nor the affidavit in reply expressly mentioned the legal provisions justifying the administrator’s appointment. Relying on clause 3.2 of the Code, the court reaffirmed that only specific authorities possess the power to appoint an administrator.
In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition and nullified the impugned order. If the charge has been assumed by the administrator, the court directed an immediate restoration to the petitioners.
Case Title: Mataji Educational Institution and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.