Special Leave to Appeal Sought Against High Court’s Decision

The petitioner (a registered society and trust running schools for underprivileged girls) is seeking permission to appeal against two orders passed by the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench).

Special Leave Petition – Case Summary

This is a brief overview of a legal matter where the Petitioner is approaching the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, seeking permission to file an appeal (Special Leave to Appeal) against two decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur

Background of the Case

1. First Decision Challenged (Review Petition):

   • In 2019, the High Court dismissed a review petition filed by the Petitioner in Misc. Civil Application No. _______ of 2019 (in Writ Petition No. _______ of 2017).

   • The Court held that there was no clear error in its earlier decision and that the points raised in the review seemed like matters for an appeal rather than a review.

2. Second Decision Challenged (Writ Petition):

   • In another order in 2019, the High Court dismissed the Petitioner’s writ petition (Writ Petition No. _______ of 2017).

   • The Court observed that the actions of the Petitioner No. 1 Management were malicious and not legally sustainable, and that the writ petition had no merit.

About the Petitioner Society

• Petitioner No. 1 is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and also a trust under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950.

• The society runs several schools in Nagpur district—four high schools and one primary school—with aid from the Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.

• It was established in 1945 with the aim of providing education to girls from economically weaker backgrounds.

• The society does not charge any fees from girl students.

Events Leading to the Dispute

• Initial Appointment:

  • Respondent No. 3 issued a communication to the school ‘YYYY_________’ approving the appointment of Respondent No. 1 as a Junior Division Teacher from ____________.

  • The school was responsible for verifying the teacher’s original educational and eligibility certificates.

• Absorption as Surplus Teacher:

  • Later, Respondent No. 3 directed Respondent No. 2 School to absorb Respondent No. 1 under Rule 26(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, as he became an additional (surplus) teacher.

  • Before joining Petitioner No. 2 School, Respondent No. 1 had already been absorbed in two other schools:

    • ___________ High School from ____________

    • ___________ High School from ____________

Important Note

This write-up is for educational and informational purposes only. Legal Light Consulting does not take responsibility for the content. For expert legal advice, please consult a Legal Light Consulting (LLC) lawyer.

Background:

1. First Order (Review Petition Dismissal):

   • The High Court dismissed a review petition, stating there was no obvious error in its earlier judgment.

   • The court noted that the petitioner was essentially trying to re-argue the case, which is not allowed in a review.

2. Second Order (Writ Petition Dismissal):

   • The High Court dismissed the original writ petition, calling the petitioner’s actions “malicious and unsustainable.”

   • The court ruled that the case had no merit.

About the Petitioner:

• The petitioner is a trust running multiple schools with government aid.

• It was established in 1945 to provide free education to girls from economically weaker backgrounds.

Dispute Details:

• The respondent no. 1 (a teacher) was appointed in the petitioner’s school based on government approval.

• The school was responsible for verifying the teacher’s qualifications.

• Later, the government directed the school to absorb the teacher under the MEPS Rules, 1981.

• Before joining this school, the teacher had worked in two other schools as a surplus employee.

Purpose of the Appeal:

The petitioner believes the High Court’s decisions were incorrect and seeks permission to challenge them in the Supreme Court.

Legal Case Summary: School Management vs. Teacher Appointment Dispute

What Is This Case About?

The Petitioner (a registered educational society) is appealing to the Supreme Court of India. They are challenging two decisions made by the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in 2019:

1. Review Petition Dismissed – The High Court said there was no obvious mistake in its earlier judgment and rejected the review request.
2. Writ Petition Dismissed – The High Court also dismissed the original case, stating that the Petitioner’s actions were unfair and had no legal basis.

Who Are the Petitioners?

• Petitioner No. 1: A registered society and trust founded in 1945 to provide free education to underprivileged girls. It runs several schools in Nagpur with government aid.
• Petitioner No. 2: One of the schools managed by the society.

 What Sparked the Dispute?

• The government (Respondent No. 3) approved the appointment of Respondent No. 1 as a Junior Division Teacher at the Petitioner’s school.
• The school was responsible for verifying the teacher’s qualifications and documents.
• Later, the government directed that Respondent No. 1 be absorbed as a surplus teacher under Rule 26(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (MEPS) Rules, 1981.

Teacher’s Previous Absorptions

Before joining the Petitioner’s school, Respondent No. 1 had already been absorbed in two other schools due to surplus staff situations:

• First at “__________ High School” from __________
• Then at “__________ High School” from __________

 Legal Points

• The Petitioner argues that the High Court wrongly dismissed their case and review petition.
• They claim the teacher’s appointment and absorption were not handled properly.
• They are now seeking permission (Special Leave) from the Supreme Court to challenge these decisions.

(Note: This is only for general understanding. For legal advice, consult a lawyer.)