NITIN JAYSING SALUNKHE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. SECRETARY AND ORS.
Redressal of Grievances for Private School Employees: High Court Directs Petitioners to Grievance Redressal Committee per Government Resolution.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-KOL:3595-DB
Decision Date: 03-12-2025
List of Laws
Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Maharashtra Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977; Government Resolution dated 27th March 2024
- Facts: The petitioner, Nitin Jaysing Salunkhe, sought directions from the Education Officer to approve his appointment as an Assistant Teacher. His initial proposal was rejected by the Education Officer on February 23, 2024. He also requested inclusion in the Shalarth Pranali for salary benefits. The court noted the case involved disputed questions of fact and was typical of litigation between school management, employees, and educational authorities.
- Procedural Posture: The case came before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, as a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking directions to educational authorities.
- Issue: Is it appropriate for the High Court to directly address the petitioner's grievance regarding approval of appointment and related benefits, or should the petitioner be directed to the Grievance Redressal Committee established by the Government Resolution (GR) of March 27, 2024?
- Holding: The High Court held that the petitioner should be relegated to the Grievance Redressal Committee formed under the Government Resolution dated March 27, 2024, as this mechanism provides an adequate remedy for the petitioner's grievance.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the GR dated March 27, 2024, provides a comprehensive mechanism for redressing grievances of private school employees and managements. The Court appreciated the State Government's action in establishing such a mechanism. The Court also noted that the grievances involved disputed questions of fact and the applicability of policy decisions, which are best addressed by expert authorities conversant with the relevant facts and provisions. The Court directed the Committee to consider the grievance without dismissing it on grounds of delay, given the petitioner's bona fide pursuit of the writ petition. The Court emphasized that the Committees must consider judicial pronouncements and render categorical findings.
🔒 For Members Only