RAJESH PRAKASH WANIversusKISAN VIDYA PRASARAK SANSTHA THR SECRETARY and ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:35034



                                                                914 WP5038.2005+
                                              -1-

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 5038 OF 2005

              .      KIRAN BHAGWAT PATIL                        .. Petitioner

                                Versus

              1.     KISAN VIDYA PRASARAK SANSTHA, SHIRPUR,
                     Through its Secretary

              2.     MAHARANI AHILYABAI HOKAR COLLEGE
                     OF PHARMACY, BORADI,
                     THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL

              3.     DY. DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, NASHIK

              4.     STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,
                     Through Director of Technical Education,
                     Mumbai                                     .. Respondents
                                              …

                                             AND

                                              …

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 8468 OF 2005

              .      RAJESH PRAKASH WANI                        .. Petitioner

                                Versus

              1.     KISAN VIDYA PRASARAK SANSTHA, SHIRPUR
                     Through its Secretary

              2.     MAHARANI AHILYABAI HOLKAR COLLEGE
                     OF PHARMACY, BORADI,
                     Through its Principal

              3.     DY. DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, NASHIK

              4.     STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,
                                                   914 WP5038.2005+
                                -2-

     Through Director of Technical Education,
     Mumbai                                         .. Respondents
                                ...
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. L. V. Sangeet
AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. V. M. Jaware
                                …

                             CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                               Date : 06.08.2026

ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1.         Writ Petition No.8468 of 2005 is not on board. The

same is taken on board.


2.         The Petitioners are the Lecturers appointed at

Respondent No.2 College. Aggrieved by the respective orders of

termination, the Petitioners were before the School Tribunal. The

School Tribunal , while deciding preliminary issue in relation to

the jurisdiction, by the impugned orders dated 30.04.2005, held

that since the Petitioners were working in the aforesaid

Pharmacy    College,   the   tribunal   had   no   jurisdiction   as

contemplated under the Maharashtra Employees of Private

Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act. Aggrieved by the

impugned orders dated 30.04.2005, the Petitioners have

preferred these Petitions.


3.         Mr. L. V. Sangeet, learned counsel for the Petitioners
                                                    914 WP5038.2005+
                                 -3-

submits that in view of the order of this court in Writ Petition

No.8342 of 2005, the present Petitions can be disposed of on the

same terms.


4.           Mr. V. M. Jaware, learned AGP supports the impugned

orders of the School Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the

Petitions.


5.           Heard    the submissions of respective sides and

perused the record.


6.           The issue of present Writ Petitions is squarely covered

by the Full Bench decision of this court in case of Anil Dattatraya

Ade Vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal 2003 (2) Mh.L.J. 316,

wherein this court framed following issue:

             “1) Whether the employees of Pharmacy institution
             are governed by the Maharashtra Employees of
             Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation
             Act, 1977 ?


7.           The Full Bench, while answering the issue, answered

in affirmative, held in paragraph No.51 of the judgment as under :

             “51. We accordingly answer issue No. 1 in the
             affirmative and hold that the employees of Pharmacy
             institutions are governed by the Maharashtra
             Employees of Private schools (Conditions of Service)
             Regulation Act, 1977, and the Maharashtra
                                                   914 WP5038.2005+
                                -4-

           Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
           Rules, 1981.”


8.         The Full Bench eventually concluded in paragraph

No.70 of the judgment that the provisions of the M.E.P.S. Act

apply to the employees working in Pharmacy institute and the

School Tribunals constituted under the Act have jurisdiction to

entertain, deal with and decide disputes in exercise of the power

conferred by the Act.


9.         As such, it is abundantly clear that all schools

imparting education or training below degree level including

institutions   imparting   technical   or   vocational   education

recognized by the Director of Education or Director of Technical

Education falling within the category of schools are covered in

sub-sections (21) and (24) of Section 2 of the M.E.P.S. Act and the

Rules.


10.        The Pharmacy College is concerned in the present

group of petitions, is such school. Hence the Act and the Rules

apply to them.


11.            In that view of the matter, the Tribunal has

committed an error in rendering the orders under challenge.
                                                   914 WP5038.2005+
                                -5-

Consequently, the impugned orders dated 30.04.2005, rendered

by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nashik Region, Nashik

in    Appeal   No.DHL-2/2001      and     Appeal   No.DHL-3/2001

respectively and further consequential orders below the appeal

memos are quashed and set aside.


12.        The matters are remanded back to the School

Tribunal. The Tribunal shall decide the appeals on it’s own merits

in accordance with law.


13.        Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of.


14.        Rule made absolute on above terms.


15.        Since the appeals are of the year 2001, the parties

shall appear before the School Tribunal on 17.08.2026. The

School Tribunal is requested to make an endeavour to conclude

these appeals within a period of three (03) months from the date

of appearance of the parties.




                                        (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)

marathe