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, 2026:BHC-AUG:35033 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