LexTHE SECRETARY, SH. A. P. D.JAIN PATHSHALA & ORS. versus SHIVAJI BHAGWAT MORE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011} 6 S.C.R. 1173 THE SECRETARY, SH. A. P. D.JAIN PATHSHALA & ORS. A v. SHIVAJI BHAGWAT MORE & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4988 of 2011) JULY 4, 2011 [R. V. RAVEEDRAN AND A. K. PATNAIK, JJ.] Shikshan Sevak Scheme 2000 (in State of Maharashtra): B Shikshan Sevak - Termination of services of - c Jurisdiction of Grievance Redressa/ Committee - HELD: Grievance Committee cannot be a qliasi-judicial forum nor can its decisions be made final ·and binding on parties in disputes relating to Shikshan Sevaks - Any order or opinion of the Grievance Committee on a complaint or grievance 0 submitted by a Shikshan Sevak would be only recommendation to the Stat13 Government (Education Department) for taking further action - The direction of the High Court that when the grievance committee holds that the termination is bad, the Shikshan Sevak is deemed to continue E on the rolls of the management is, therefore, erroneous and· is set aside - It is open to Shikshan Sevak to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Grievance Redressal Committee - Constitution of - High Court in writ petitions directing that the Committee should be F headed by a retired District Judge, the Committee would give opportunity to the parties to fife their replies and that the Committee would be the only adjudicatory authority and no civil court would entertain any suit or application in respect of disputes which were required to be dealt with by the Committee G - HELD: These changes by the High Court converted what was originally conceived by the State Government to be an administrative grievance redressa/ mechanism, into a quasi judicial adjudicatory Tribunal - Neither the Constitution nor 1173 H 1174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 6 S.C.R. A any statute empowers a High Court to create or constitute quasi judicial Tribunals for adjudicating disputes - It has no legislative powers - Nor can it direct the executive branch of the State Government to create or constitute quasi judicial Tribunals, otherwise than by legislative Statutes - Therefore, B it is not permissible for the High Court to direct the State Government to constitute judicial authorities or Tribunals by executive orders, nor is it permissible for the State by executive order or resolution to create them for adjudication of rights of parties - The High Court in exercise of the power C of judicial review, cannot issue a direction that the civil courts shall not entertain any suit or application in regard to a particular type of disputes (in the instant case, disputes relating to Shikshan Sevaks) nor can it create exclusive jurisdiction in a quasi-judicial forum like the Grievance 0 Committee - The High Court, cannot, by a judicial order, nullify, supersede or render ineffectual the express provisions of an enactment - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 162; 226, 233, 234 and 247; 323-A and 323-B - The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (C mditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-s.9 - E Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Judicial Review. The Government of Maharashtra by Resolution dated 27.4.2000 sanctioned Shikshan Sevak Scheme for recognized private secondary/higher secondary schools/ F junior Colleges/B.Ed. Colleges in the State. The Scheme provided for constitution of a three member Grievance Redressal Committee consisting of the officers of the Education Department for considering the grievances of Shikshan Sevaks. In the writ petitions challenging the said G scheme, the High Court, by its order dated 16.8.2000, directed the State Government to reconstitute the Grievance Redressal Committee with a retired District Judge as its Chairman. It further directed that the Committee would give opportunity to the parties to file H their replies and that no civil court would entertain any SECRETARY, SH. A. P. D.JAIN PATHSHALA & ORS.1175 v. SHIVAJI BHAGWAT MORE suit or application in respect of disputes which were A required to be dealt with by the Committee. By subsequent Government Resolution dated 27.7.2001, it was provided that the grievances would be considered by a Single Member Committee consisting of retired Judge, of the rank of Civil Judge, Senior Division. B Respondent no. 1 was appointed by appellant No.1 as Shikshan Sevak for the period 1.8.200 to 31.7.2003. According to him, his services were terminated on 11.6.2001. He filed an appeal before the Grievance Co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.