38.wp3398.2023jud.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3398 OF 2023 1. Dharampeth Education Society, North Ambazari Road - through its chairman, Nagpur. 2. Headmistress, R.S. Mundale English Medium School, Samartha Nagar (West), Wardha Road, Nagpur. 3. Headmistress (Primary), R.S. Mundle English Medium School, Nagpur. ... Petitioners Versus 1. Chandrakant Krishnarao Wandhare, Aged about 60 years, Occupation: Retired, R/o. Plot No.119, Hudkeshwar Road, Sanmarg Nagar, Nagpur – 24. 2. The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Civil Lines, Nagpur ... Respondents 3. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Civil Lines, Nagpur. 4. Learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Administrative Building No.1, Nagpur. Shri A. R. Patil, Advocate for petitioners. Shri R. N. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri Majid Shaikh, Advocate for respondent No.3. Smt M. N. Naik, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 and 4. CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 28.09.2026 JUDGMENT: Heard. (2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally PAGE 1 OF 6 2026:BHC-NAG:13148 38.wp3398.2023jud.odt with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. (3) The present petition challenges the judgment dated 20.10.2022 of the School Tribunal, Nagpur in Appeal No.04/2021. The said appeal was filed by respondent No.1 herein challenging his retirement after he completing the age of 58 years. According to him, he should have continued in service till the age of 60 years. (4) Facts which are more or less undisputed are as under : (4.1) The respondent No.1 was appointed as ‘Peon’ on 08.09.1986 in the Kindergarten Division on temporary basis. It is also noteworthy to mention that the said appointment was only for one academic year. However, thereafter vide order dated 30.03.1992 he was continued on the said post. After working on the post of Peon and retiring on 12.02.2021, he chose to file an appeal before the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short, the MEPS Act) stating that in fact he was appointed in a Primary School and therefore, ought to have continued up to the age of 60 years. (4.2) The petitioners-Management raised a preliminary objection before the School Tribunal regarding the maintainability of PAGE 2 OF 6 38.wp3398.2023jud.odt the appeal since according to the Management, the School Tribunal constituted under the provisions of MEPS Act would not have any jurisdiction to decide the same. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of this Court in Governing Body, Nirmal Education Society, Gondia and anr. vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur and another, reported in 1996(2) Mh.L.J. 592 which is also followed in Writ Petition No.3389/2019 (Smt Vatsala Vs. Dharampeth Education Society, Nagpur and others) which pertains to the same Management. Inspite of that, the School Tribunal by way of impugned judgment allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner-Management to continue respondent No.1-employee on his post till he attains the age of sixty years. The said judgment is challenged in the present writ petition. (5) I have heard Shri A. R. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners as also Shri R. N. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Smt M. N. Naik, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State. (6) It is primary contention of Shri Patil that the Tribunal constituted under Section 9 of the MEPS Act would not have any jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of an employee, who has been PAGE 3 OF 6 38.wp3398.2023jud.odt appointed in Kindengarten Division as a Teacher (pre-primary division). By placing reliance on the judgment in Nirmal Education Society (supra), it is the contention of Shri Patil that no issue regarding the jurisdiction is framed and the School Tribunal has proceeded on a slipshod premise. By pointing me out the judgment, it is his contention that the School Tribunal has recorded a finding that the School is recognized as per the provisions of MEPS Act. He, however, submits that the said recognition is for Primary, Secondary or Higher Secondary School classes and not for the Kindergarten. Infact, the recognition is not required for the Kindergarten. In nutshell, it is his submission that if statute itself is not applicable, the Tribunal would not have any jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. (7) Per contra, Shri R. N. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.1-employee supports the impugned judgment. He submits that voluminous documents are filed on the record in support of the fact that even though the respondent No.1 is shown to have been appointed in Kindergarten Division, he was shown to be the employee of Primary Division. He submits that even though the School Tribunal has not considered the documents individually, a finding has been rendered in his favour which is on the basis of said PAGE 4 OF 6 38.wp3398.2023jud.odt documents. He submits that the finding cannot be faulted with. In nutshell, he supports the impugned judgment. (8) I have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties and with their able assistance have gone through the record of the matter. Prima facie, it seems that respondent No.1 is employee in Kindergarten Division and therefore, applicability of provisions of MEPS Act is seriously questioned. As can be seen from the judgment, neither an issue of jurisdiction is framed nor there is any categorical finding on the voluminous documents filed by respondent No.1 on record. It would be, therefore, in the interest of litigants concerned that the matter is relegated to the School Tribunal for deciding afresh in accordance with law. (9) Accordingly, the following order is passed : (i) The judgment of the School Tribunal, Nagpur dated 20.10.2022 in Appeal No.04/2021 is quashed and set side. (ii) Matter is relegated to the School Tribunal, Nagpur for deciding afresh in accordance with law. (iii) Needless to mention that the School Tribunal would decide the matter strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, if they are applicable. PAGE 5 OF 6 38.wp3398.2023jud.odt (iv) The School Tribunal would frame an issue of jurisdiction and applicability of the provisions of MEPS Act, in addition to the other issues which will arise on the basis of the pleadings. (v) It is made clear that this Court has not commented on the merits of the matter and it would be for the School Tribunal to decide the same. (vi) Parties undertake to appear before the School Tribunal, Nagpur on 14.10.2026 without any formal notice being issued in that regard and to comply with the further directions of the School Tribunal. (10) Writ Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. (11) Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. [Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.] Prity PAGE 6 OF 6 Signed by: Mrs. Prity Gabhane Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 05/10/2026 17:46:56