ADIVASI UNNATI SEVA MANDAL THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN BHARAT NAMDEO GHANE AND ANOTHERversusRAJESH DAGDU DUBE AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:22955
                                                                       WP-11501-2025.doc



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 11501 OF 2025

             1) Adivasi Unnati Seva Mandal,
             Rajur, Tq. Akole, District Ahmednagar,
             Through its : Chairman,
             Shri Bharat s/o Namdeo Ghane,
             Age 60 years, Occu. Chairman,
             R/o. Rajur, Tq. Akole,
             District Ahmednagar

             2) The Aided Primary Ashram School,
             Khadki (Rajur), Tq. Akole,
             District Ahmednagar,
             Through its: Head – Mistress,
             Smt. Minakshi w/o Trimbak Patil,
             Age 53 years, Occu. Service,
             R/o. Khadki (Rajur), Tq. Akole,
             District Ahmednagar.                               … Petitioners
                                                       (Orig. Resp. Management)

                       VERSUS
             1) Rajesh s/o Dagdu Dube,
             Age 49 years, Occu. Service,
             R/o. In front of ‘Rajyog Hotel’,
             Pathik, K. G. Road, Akole,
             Tq. Akole, District Ahmednagar …           (Orig. Appellant)


             2) The Project Officer,
             Integrated Tribal Development Project,
             Rajur, Tq. Akole, District Ahmednagar.


             3) The Additional Commissioner,
             Tribal Development Department,
             Gadkari Chowk, Ground Floor,
             Adivasi Vikas Bhavan,
             Old Mumbai – Agra Road, Nashik,
             Tq. & District Nashik.                     … Respondents
                                                      (Orig. Resp. Nos.3 & 4)


                                                                                  1/11
                                                         WP-11501-2025.doc


______________________________________________________________

Mr. Vivek Dhage holding for Mr. R. D. Bhalerao, Advocate for the
Petitioners

Mr. R. D. Khadap, Advocate for Respondent No.1
______________________________________________________________
                      CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                      DATE :     12.06.2026

FINAL ORDER :

1.   The Petitioners impugn the order dated 25.07.2025, passed by

     the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad

     (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) below Exhibit–13 in

     Appeal No. 09/2024, whereby the Petitioners’ objection to the

     jurisdiction of the School Tribunal to entertain the Appeal

     filed by Respondent No.1 / employee of the Ashram School

     came to be rejected.


2.   The Respondent No.1 filed Appeal No.09/2024 before the

     Tribunal, thereby challenging the legality, validity and

     propriety of the termination order dated 01.04.2024 passed by

     the Petitioners. The Petitioners filed an Application /

     Objection below Exhibit – 13 stating that the Respondent had

     an alternate remedy of approaching the Commissioner, Tribal

     Development Department, in view of the provisions of the

     “Ashram Schools Code”, being an employee of a Primary

                                                                    2/11
                                                           WP-11501-2025.doc


     Ashram School. It was contention of the Petitioners that the

     remedy under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of

     Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977

     (hereinafter referred to as “the MEPS Act”) would not be

     available   to   the   Respondent,    particularly    when       the

     jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act

     is available to the employees of “Private School” within the

     meaning of Section 2(20) of the MEPS Act.


3.   The   Tribunal    rejected   the   Petitioners’   objection     vide

     impugned order dated 25.07.2025, relying upon Rule 20 of the

     the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education

     (RTE) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of

     2011’) framed under the Right of Children to Free and

     Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred

     to as ‘the Act of 2009’) and holding that in view of Rule 20 of

     the Rules of 2011, even teachers of Ashram Schools are

     covered within the jurisdiction of the School Tribunal.


4.   Mr. Vivek Dhage, learned Advocate appearing for the

     Petitioners, submits that the issue arises for consideration in

     the present petition is whether the employees of a Primary

     Ashram School can file an Appeal before the Tribunal under

                                                                      3/11
                                                    WP-11501-2025.doc


Section 9 of the MEPS Act, particularly in the absence of any

amendment to the MEPS Act to include Primary Ashram

Schools within the ambit of the term “Private School”. He

would submit that the Rules of 2011, framed under sub-

sections (1) and (2) of Section 38 of the Act of 2009, could not

automatically amend the MEPS Act. The State Government

has, therefore, provided a remedy to the employees of Private

Ashram Schools to file proceedings against termination before

the Divisional Social Welfare Officer. In the absence of any

amendment to the MEPS Act, employees working in Primary

Ashram Schools or in any other schools which do not fall

within the ambit of the term “Private School” cannot

approach the Tribunal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act. Mr.

Dhage would further submit that the Full Bench Judgment of

this Court in the case of Suryakant Sheshrao Panchal Vs.

Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jati, Bhatakya Jati Aadarsh

Prasarak Mandal and Others, reported in 2002 (3)

Mh.L.J. 659, ruled out that “When it comes to an Ashram

school which is only a primary school, it does not satisfy the

definition of “private school” within the meaning of Section

2(20) of the MEPS Act, as such schools would not require

recognition from any of the authorities as specified in Section

                                                               4/11
                                                         WP-11501-2025.doc


     2(21) of the MEPS Act. Hence, it would not be a “private

     school” within the meaning of the MEPS Act”. Relying upon

     the observations of the Full Bench decision in Hashmiya

     Bahrul Faiz Social Welfare Association Vs. Abdullah M.

     Shukur Qureshi and Others, reported in 2023 (2) Mh.L.J.

     763, Mr. Dhage submits that while dealing with the issue of

     employees from D.Ed and B.Ed colleges, the Full Bench

     observed that a legislative amendment is necessary to address

     the issue and to create additional categories of the teachers

     who would become eligible to file Appeals before the Tribunal.


5.   According to Mr. Dhage, to settle the issue once and for all, it

     is to be considered whether the Judgment of the Hon’ble

     Supreme Court in Dagdu Vs. President, Anandrao Naik

     Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Others, reported in 2006

     (9) SCC 782, the Full Bench decision of this Court in

     Hashmiya Bahrul Faiz Social Welfare Association Vs.

     Abdullah M. Shukur Qureshi and Others, reported in

     2023 (2) Mh.L.J. 763, and the Special Bench Judgment in

     the case of Shobha w/o Kailash Bonekar Vs. Cantonment

     Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Ahmednagar

     and Others, reported in 2007 (2) Mh.L.J. 889, will prevail


                                                                    5/11
                                                         WP-11501-2025.doc


     over the Division Bench decision in Latika Rajaram Mane

     Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 2014 (3)

     Bom. C. R. 439 along with Single Judge decisions of this

     Court in Hansh Shikshan Krida and Vayam Prasarak

     Mandal, Pimpalkhuta and Another Vs. Laxman Maroti

     Raut and Another, reported in 2020 DGLS (Bom.) 1444;

     Parwa Education Society Vs. Suresh s/o Govindrao

     Bhure, reported in 2022 DGLS (Bom.) 523; and Bhaskar

     Sonerao Deshmukh Vs. Ahilyabai Holkar Shikshan

     Prasarak Mandal, Karepur and Another, reported in

     (2023) 6 Mh.LJ 727.


6.   Per contra, Mr. R. D. Khadap, the learned Advocate appearing

     for Respondent No.1 would submit that the Division Bench of

     this Court, in the case of Latika Rajaram Mane (Supra) has

     already settled that after coming into effect the Rules of 2011,

     a right of Appeal is provided to teachers of Primary Schools in

     respect of decisions falling within the purview of Rule 20 of

     the Rules of 2011 framed under the Act of 2009. The

     enactment of the Act of 2009 and the Rules of 2011 framed

     thereunder had materially altered the position of law as laid

     down in the case of Suryakant Sheshrao Panchal (Supra).


                                                                    6/11
                                                   WP-11501-2025.doc


The expression “Private School” is defined in Section 2(20) of

the MEPS Act. By framing of the Rules under the Right to

Education Act by the State Government has fundamentally

altered the situation. The forum of the School Tribunals is

now provided to employees of Primary Schools in the State of

Maharashtra who are aggrieved by any of the decision of the

Management. Mr. Khadap would submit that the Single

Judge of this Court, in the case of Hansh Shikshan Krida and

Vayam    Prasarak    Mandal,   Pimpalkhuta     (Supra),       has

specifically held in the context of primary Ashram Schools

that the employees are entitled to file Appeals before the

School Tribunal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act and Rules.

Mr. Khadap, heavily relied upon the observations of Single

Judge of this Court in the case of Parwa Education Society

(Supra) to contend that in view of the change in law pursuant

to the enactment of the Right to Education Act and the Rules

of 2011, as interpreted in Latika Rajaram Mane (Supra),

there is no room to contend that Ashram Schools pertaining

to the primary level are excluded from the jurisdiction of the

Tribunal constituted under the MEPS Act and Rules. Mr.

Khadap would further invite the attention of this Court to the

another decision of the Single Judge of this Court in the case

                                                              7/11
                                                          WP-11501-2025.doc


     of Bhaskar Sonerao Deshmukh (Supra), wherein, a similar

     issue has been considered and dealt with holding that in view

     of Rule 20 of the Rules of 2011, the proper forum for

     terminated employees of Primary Ashram School is the

     School Tribunal established under the MEPS Act.


7.   Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned

     Advocates appearing for the respective parties, this Court

     finds that initially, the Full Bench of this Court in the case of

     Suryakant Sheshrao Panchal (Supra) held that the Ashram

     Schools at the primary level could not be covered under the

     provisions of the MEPS Act and the Rules, insofar as the

     grievance redressal mechanism for employees was concerned,

     and the employees were held not entitled to file an Appeal

     before the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act

     and Rules. The aforesaid position was affirmed by the

     Supreme Court in the case of Dagdu (Supra). Even the same

     position was reaffirmed in the case of Komal Rugwani Vs.

     State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in 2011 (4)

     Mh.L.J. 301. However, after the enactment of the Right to

     Education Act and the framing of the Maharashtra Rules

     thereunder, the Division Bench of this Court in Latika


                                                                     8/11
                                                        WP-11501-2025.doc


     Rajaram Mane (Supra) held that the grievance redressal

     mechanism for teachers provided under Rule 20 of the

     Maharashtra Rules brought about a change in the legal

     position, thereby enabling employees of Primary Ashram

     Schools to invoke jurisdiction under Section 9 of the MEPS

     Act. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the

     case of Latika Rajaram Mane (Supra) is consistently followed

     by Single Judge Benches of this Court, particularly in case of

     Hansh Shikshan Krida and Vayam Prasarak Mandal,

     Pimpalkhuta and Another Vs. Laxman Maroti Raut

     and Another reported in 2021 (4) ALL MR 520 and Parwa

     Education Society Vs. Suresh s/o Govindrao Bhure,

     reported in 2022 (5) Mh. LJ 235 and several other decisions.


8.   In light of the aforesaid backdrop and the exposition of law by

     the Division Bench and the Single Judges of this Court, there

     is no room to adopt a different view than as has been

     reiterated by this Court while following the verdict in Latika

     Rajaram Mane (Supra). Although learned Advocate Mr.

     Dhage insistently contends that in absence of any amendment

     to the definition of “Private School” in the MEPS Act, the

     jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon the School Tribunal to


                                                                   9/11
                                                             WP-11501-2025.doc


      deal with the grievances of employees from private Ashram

      Schools, particularly on the basis of the Act of 2009 and Rule

      20 of the Rules of 2011, this Court do not find any substance

      in his contentions. No challenge has been raised to the

      grievance redressal mechanism provided under Rule 20 of the

      Rules of 2011, which came into force with effect from

      11.10.2011.


9.    Undisputedly, Rule 20 prescribes the forum to a teacher or

      employee of a School, other than a School run by the

      Government or a Local Authority, against the decisions of the

      Management     regarding    his   or   her   service   conditions,

      particularly where such employee has been dismissed,

      removed or otherwise terminated from the service. Sub-rule 2

      of Rule 20 further provides that an appeal if preferred shall

      be governed by the provisions of Sections 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

      and 14 of the MEPS Act and Rules 39 and 43 of the

      Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of

      Service) Rules, 1981.


10.   In light of the aforesaid factual and legal backdrop and

      particularly in the absence of any challenge to validity of Rule

      20 of the Rules of 2011 framed under the Act of 2009, this

                                                                       10/11
                                                           WP-11501-2025.doc


         Court do not find any reason to accede to the submissions

         advanced by the learned Advocate Mr. Dhage for referring the

         proposed issue to a Larger Bench. This Court also do not find

         any merit in the challenge raised to the impugned order

         passed by School Tribunal. Hence, the Writ Petition stands

         dismissed.




                                     [S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.]




Sameer




                                                                     11/11