JAI BHAVANI SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL versus RAMESH & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 17 S.C.R. 601 · Decided: 29-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
601
   [2022] 17 S.C.R. 601
601
JAI BHAVANI SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL
v.
RAMESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7937 of 2011)
MARCH 29, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of
Service) Regulation Act, 1977 – ss. 2(9), 9 – Maharashtra Employees
of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 – r.36(2)(b)–
Doctrine of necessity – First respondent was appointed as the
Principal of the Institute of Pharmacy being run by appellant-society
– Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on certain
allegations – After completion of inquiry, management passed an
order imposing penalty of removal from service – Appeal filed by
respondent, allowed by School Tribunal on the ground that the
constitution of the inquiry committee was not in accordance with
r.36(2)(b) of 1981 Rules– Writ petition filed by the appellant was
dismissed by High Court – On appeal, held: Two expressions namely
“Head” and “Chief Executive Officer” used in sub-rule (1) of r.36
provide the fulcrum of the controversy on hand – Sub-rule (2) of
r.36 provides for the composition of the Inquiry Committee in a
particular manner in the case of “an employee” and it provides for
the composition of the Inquiry Committee in a different manner in
the case of “the Head” – In the present case, the Departmental
Inquiry Committee as originally constituted, had the President of
the appellant as a Member – But the President requested the appellant
to relieve him due to ill health – Thereafter, one of the Vice-Presidents
was requested to be part of the Inquiry Committee, however, the
said Vice-President also recused due to family problems –
 Another Vice-President was nominated to be part of the Inquiry  
Committee – The   said   Vice-President   also   opted   out – Then
management decided to confer all the powers of the president to
one ‘ASRP’ – However, school tribunal as well as High Court omitted
to take note that the first respondent was informed about the ill
health of the President of the society and the appointment of ‘ASRP’in
his place – Tribunal as well as the High Court failed to take note of
the very pleadings of the first respondent with regard to the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
602
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
circumstances in which the President of the Society could not
continue as part of the Inquiry Committee – Therefore, the order of
the School Tribunal was vitiated by perversity –Moreover, the High
Courtfailed to take the note of doctrine of necessity – Once it is
admitted, that the disciplinary proceedings commenced with an
Inquiry Committee of which the President was a member; and that
subsequently he was replaced by someone due to ill health, the
doctrine of necessity would come into play – Hence, the orders of
High Court and School Tribunal are liable to be reversed – Since,
the School Tribunal rejected all other contentions of respondent
No.1, but upheld only the contention revolving around r.36(2)(b),
the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the first respondent
is to be upheld.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Two expressions namely “Head” and “Chief
Executive Officer” used in sub-rule (1) of Rule 36 provide the
fulcrum of the controversy on hand. The expression “Head” is
not defined in the Rules. However, the expression “Chief
Executive Officer” is defined in Rule 2(1)(c). The word “Head”
is defined in Section 2(9) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private
Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. Sub-rule
(2) of Rule 36 provides for the composition of the Inquiry
Committee in a particular manner in the case of “an employee”
and it provides for the composition of the Inquiry Committee in a
different manner in the case of “the Head”. In other words, the
Inquiry Committee can comprise of (i) one member amongst the
members of the Management, nominated by the management or
the President; (ii) one member nominated by the employee from
amongst the employees; and (iii) one member chosen by the Chief
Executive Officer from the panel of teachers, if the inquiry is
against “an employee”. But if the inquiry is against the Head,
the Inquiry Committee should comprise of: (i) the President of
the Management; (ii) one member to be nominated by the Head
from amongst the employees of any private schools; and (iii) one
member chosen by the President from the panel of Head Masters.
[Paras 8-10][608-C-H; 609-A]
1.2 In the case on hand, there is and there can be

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.