H.L. Gokhale, Acting C.J.
1. Writ Petition No. 721 of 2006 is filed by a teacher working in a primary school run by the Cantonment Board at Ahmednagar. The respondent No. 3 to the said writ petition is another teacher working in the said school and claims to be senior to the petitioner. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Mistress by the order dated 17-2-2005 issued by the Cantonment Board. That order was challenged by respondent No. 3 by filing Appeal No. 20 of 2005 before the School Tribunal at Solapur, under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, 1977 (for short, ''MEPS Act'). The School Tribunal allowed that appeal by its judgment and order dated 6-1-2006 and set aside the order promoting the petitioner. This petition is filed to challenge the said order of the School Tribunal.
2. The connected Writ Petition No. 3403 of 2006 is filed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board, Ahmednagar, to challenge the very order passed by the School Tribunal. Since both the above writ petitions challenge the same order and the parties are common they have been directed to be heard together and are accordingly heard and are being decided together.
3. The petitioners in both these writ petitions challenge the order passed by the School Tribunal on various grounds. One of the grounds and the principle one amongst them has been that the School Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the Appeal under Section 9 of MEPS Act in the matters of the teachers employed under the Cantonment Boards concerning the disciplinary action against them. They have submitted that MEPS Act applies to the recruitment and conditions of service of the employees in private schools in the State and that the schools run by the Cantonment Boards are not governed under the said Act.
4. As far as the contesting respondent No. 3 is concerned, she has relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Deolali Cantonment Board v. Usha Devidas Dongre reported in 1993 Mh LJ 74 : 1993 Lab IC 1858. It held that the schools established and administered by the Cantonment Board fall within the definition of private schools under the Act. As against the said judgment, another Division Bench in the judgment in Rita, J. Verghese v. Vidya Mandir 2002 (3) MH LJ 57 took the view that the expression 'private school' has to be read to mean 'a private school established or administered by a management other than the Government or a local authority'. That was in the context of a private primary school aided by the Municipal Corporations and it was held that such a school was not covered under MEPS Act.
5. Similar view was taken by the Full Bench in Suryakant Sheshrao Panchal v. Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jati Shikshan Prasarak Mandal 2002 (3) MH LJ 659 : 2003 Lab IC 1 in the context of Ashram schools.
6. The writ petitions came up before a learned single Judge on 10-7-2006. He found good force in the ratio laid down in Rita Verghese's judgment. However, having noted the divergent judgments, the learned Judge referred the following issue for the determination of a Larger Bench:
Whether the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, 1977, could entertain the appeals under Section 9 of MEPS Act filed by the employees working in the schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board.
When the writ petitions were placed before the Full Bench, it was of the view that a recent amendment to Sub-section (21) of Section 2 of MEPS Act has changed the scenario. The term 'recognised' in the context of a recognised school is defined under said subsection. Earlier the definition reads as follows:
Section 2(21) 'recognised' means recognised by the Director of Divisional Board or the State Board.
After the amendment introduced by Maharashtra Amendment Act No. 32 of 1990, Sub-section (21) of Section 2 was substituted by the following sub-section:
Section 2(21) 'recognised' means recognised by the Director, the Divisional Board or the State Board, or by any officer authorised by him or by any of such Boards.The Full Bench thought that the phrase 'any officer authorised by him or by any of such Boards' would probably lend support to the view taken by the earliest Division Bench in Deolali Cantonment Board's case 1993 Lab IC 1858 (supra). The Full Bench, therefore, directed the registry to place the papers before the Honourable The Chief Justice for appropriate orders vide an order dated 19-9-2006. The Honourable Chief Justice has constituted the present Larger Bench of Five Judges to look into the controversy.
To decide the issue that is framed and referred to this Larger Bench, it will be desirable to refer to the scheme of the Act. C
7. We were assisted by Shri Ravi Kadam, learned Advocate General and Shri P. M. Shah, Senior Advocate appointed as Amicus Curie. Shri S.S. Jadhavar and Shri A. N. Kakade, learned Advocates appeared for the petitioner. We heard Shri V.D. Sapkal, learned Counsel for the teacher who had succeeded in the appeal.
8. Shri V.D. Sapkal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-teacher, submitted that the phrase 'any such Boards occurring in Section 2(21) of the Act' should be read as covering 'Cantonment Board' and therefore, a school run by the Cantonment Board should be treated as a recognised school and therefore, it is a private school under Section 2(20) of the Act. He submits that the definitions in Section 2 begin with the initial clause which says that the definitions in this Act are to be so read unless the context otherwise requires. In his submissions, the schools run by the local authority are not governed under this Act and the local authorities mean only the Zilla Parishad, Municipal Council or Municipal Corporation as stated in Section 2(11). Therefore, he submitted that the context requires that the phrase 'any such Boards' occurring in Section 2(21) be read to mean that the schools of the Cantonment Board are governed by MEPS Act. He has also relied on a number of judgments to submit that a beneficial interpretation is necessary in such matters. He referred to and relied on para 9 of the Apex Court judgment in Utkal Contractors and Joinery Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors. : [1987]3SCR317 . He also referred to and relied on the decision of the Apex Court in National Buildings' Construction Corporation Ltd. v. Pritam Singh Gill and Ors. : [1973]1SCR40 to submit that the context of the statute must be seen. For similar purpose, he has relied on the decision in K.V. Muthu v. Angamuthu Ammal : AIR1997SC628 to the effect that the definitions are to be read in the context of the statute. He referred to para 101 of the judgment in Indian Handicrafts Emporium and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : AIR2003SC3240 to the effect that for interpreting the provisions the entire statute must be seen. There cannot be any quarrel with any of these propositions. However, all these propositions will have to be looked into in the context of the statute and its scheme and then they will have to be applied.
9. For examining this submission, we have to note that the MEPS Act is enacted to regulate the recruitments and the conditions of employees in certain private schools. This is clearly stated in the preamble of the Act with a further statement that this is with a view to providing such employees security and stability of service to enable them to discharge their duties towards the pupils and their guardians in particular, and the institution and the society in general, effectively and efficiently. Section 3(1) of the Act declares that as the provisions of this Act shall apply to all private schools in the State of Maharashtra, whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Thus, receiving of any aid from the State Government is not the determining factor. What is material is that a school has to be a private school. Private school is defined in Section 2(20} as follows:
Section 2(20) 'Private school' means a recognized school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority.
Thus, to be a private school under the Act, two conditions are required to be fulfilled - (i) that it must be a recognised school and (ii) it must be established or administered by the management which is other than that of the Government or a local authority. 'A local Authority' is specifically defined for the purposes of this Act under Section 2(11) as follows:
Section 2(11) 'local authority' means a Zilla Parishad, a Municipal Corporation, or a Municipal Council, as the case may be.Inasmuch as the Act itself defines as to what is the local authority, that definition of the local authority under the Act will govern the concept of local authority as used under the Act and one is not required to look to the definition under the General Clauses Act. Besides, the definition uses the phrase 'local authority means'. It does not use the phrase 'local authority includes'. Thus, for the purposes of this Act only the entities mentioned this definition will be covered thereunder namely: Zilla Parishad, Municipal Corporation or Municipal Council.
10. The concept of being 'recognised' is defined in Section 2(21) of the Act reproduced above. The definition is in two parts and these two parts are separated by a comma. The first part is quite clear and it states that 'recognised' means 'recognised' by (i) Director, (ii) the Divisional Board or (iii) State Board. This 'State Board' is defined under Section 2(25) of the Act. It covers thereunder four authorities. Section 2(25) reads as follows:
Section 2(25) 'State Board' means:
(a) Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education established under the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Act, 1965;
(b) the Board of Technical Examinations Maharashtra State
(c) the Maharashtra State Board of Vocational Examinations; or
(d) the Act Examination Committee.
11. The Divisional Board is defined as a Divisional Board established under the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Act, 1965, (for short, 'Boards Act'). It is constituted under Section 6 of this Act. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the 'comma' refers to any officer authorised by the Director or by any of such Boards.
12. The question to be examined is whether the school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. As far as the Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board is concerned, the powers and duties thereof are provided in Section 18 of the Boards Act. It includes amongst others, the duty to advise the State Government on matters of policy relating to secondary or higher secondary education, ensure a uniform pattern of secondary or higher secondary education and for junior colleges, to lay down guiding principles for determining curricula and syllabi, to prescribe standards of secondary and higher secondary education, to prescribe books, to award certificates to the candidates passing the final examinations, etc. As far as the Divisional Boards are concerned, their duties are given in Section 19 of the Act, which amongst others, include conduct of final examination within its area, to admit the candidates, to open centres within its jurisdiction for the final examination conducted by it, declaration of results, etc. 'A private school' has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely; recognised 'by any officer authorised by the Director or by any of such Boards,' is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. This view has been taken now by the Apex Court in Dagdu v. Presidend, Anandrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ors. (2006) (9) SCC 782 deeded on 20-3-2006.
13. The appellant in the above matter worked as an Assistant Teacher and later as a Headmaster in the ashram school run by Anandrao Naik Shikshen Mandal. The services were terminated in the year 1997. After first going to the Labour Court, later he filed an appeal before the School Tribunal. The appeal came to be allowed and the order of termination came to be set aside. The petition filed by the respondent-institution was allowed in the High Court on the sole ground that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appellants appeal. In the appeal to the Supreme Court, reliance was placed on the judgment in Surya Kant's case 2003 Lab IC 1 (supra). In paras 6 and 8 of the judgment, the Apex Court noted that the Tribunal is set up for deciding the disputes of the employees from private schools. The Apex Court then referred to the definitions of a private school, a recognised school and that of the Director and the Divisional Board Thereafter the Apex Court laid down in para 7 that the Board referred to in the definition of the term 'recognised' means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than the level of the ashram school. The ashram school in question imparted only primary education from 1st to 7th standards. It was not recognised either by the Director or by the Boards under the Act. Therefore, it was not a private school. So held the Apex Court in para 8 and while doing so it held that the decision in Surya Kant's case was a correct one. It held that the Tribunal would not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of the appellant since he was not an employee of a private school.
14. Thus, what is to be noted is that the Apex Court has clearly laid down that the Boards referred to in the definition of the word 'recognised' meant the Boards which deal with the education at levels other than that of the level at which the ashram schools were operating. Thereafter this judgment has specifically referred to the fact that the ashram school was imparting primary education from 1st to 7th standards only. That means, it was only a primary school. It could not be recognised by the Director or by the Boards. It was not so recognised and it was not a private school. What is material to note is that the Apex Court has clearly stated that for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e. secondary level. This flows from the earlier discussion viz.; that it has to be a school other than the school run by the Government or local authority. The local authorities are in charge of only the primary education.
15. The Apex Court has confirmed the ratio laid down in the judgment in Surya Kant's case. That was a case where this Court has clearly held that the employees working under the ashram schools which are only primary schools could not maintain an appeal under Section 9 of MEPS Act. However, those who were in secondary and higher secondary schools have a right to approach the School Tribunal. This is seen from para 16 of that judgment. At the end of para 17 of the judgment in Suryakant's case, it was clearly laid down that when a remedy is provided in a statute to employees of only private school that remedy cannot be extended to an employee of any other school.
16. In this connection, we must note that as far as the primary schools are concerned, they are governed under the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947. Section 2(11) of this Act defines 'Municipal School Board' meaning a school board constituted for the area of an authorised municipality under Section 3 of that Act. It is also a Board but it is setup by a local authority and therefore, any school run or recognised by the local authority would get excluded from the definition of a private school since the definition itself specifically excludes the schools run by the Government or the local authority.
17. Similarly, under Section 2(26) of Maharashtra Zilla Parishads Act, there is a Divisional Board. However, the employees working in the schools recognised by such Board also get excluded because the Zilla Parishad is a local authority within the meaning of Section 2(11) of MEPS Act. A school run by a local authority is outside the coverage of a private school under Section 2(20) of the Act. On this background, we come to the schools run by the Cantonment Board.
18. The Cantonments Act, 2006 has recently come into force from 13-9-2006 and has repealed the earlier Cantonments Act, 1924. 'Cantonment' is defined under Section 3 of new Act as a place or places along with boundaries in which any part of Armed Forces is quartered, which the Central Government may, by notification published in the Official Gazette, declares it as such. Under Section 10 of the Act, there shall be a Cantonment Board for every cantonment area. Under Section 10(2) of the Act itself, it is provided that every Board shall be a municipality under Clause (e) of Article 243P of the Constitution for the purposes of receiving grants and allocations or for implementing the central Government schemes of social welfare, public health, hygiene, safety, water-supply, sanitation, urban renewal and education. It is a body corporate under Section 11 of the Act. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, Clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education.
19. As laid down by the Apex Court in Dagdu's case (supra), to be a private school within the definition of Section 2(20) the school has to be recognised under Section 2(21) by a Board and the Board has to be a Board which deals with education at levels other than the primary level at which the ashram school was imparting education. Obviously, all such schools cannot be said to be covered under the concept of private schools.
20. The decision in Deolali Cantonment Boards case 1993 Lab IC 1858 (supra) has referred to the aspect that the schools of the Cantonment Board are not excluded under the definition of a local authority under Section 2(11) of MEPS Act. To that extent, it cannot be faulted. However, a school has to be a recognised school meaning a school recognised by any such Board of the level of the Divisional Board or the State Board to be a private school. This aspect Is lost sight of in that judgment. That being so, the said judgment cannot be said to be laying down the correct law on that footing.
21. Section 2(21) of MEPS Act defines the term 'recognised'. The last clause therein is 'by any of such boards'. The term 'such' is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term 'such Board' will have to mean a Divisional Board or of the level of Divisional Board or the State Board. We may mention in this connection that the learned Advocate General referred us to the proposition in para 10 of the decision in Mahadeolal v. Administrator General reported in : [1960]3SCR578 to the effect that an adjectival phrase qualifies the proximate substantive word. That was for explaining the phras/: 'such boards' in the correct context.
22. As stated earlier, the Divisional Board * holds the examination and issues the certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down the principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc; as seen from Section 18 of the Boards Act. The cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. A school run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under MEPS Act.
23. In this context, it is relevant to note that the present Cantonments Act 2006, is a successor to the earlier Cantonments Act, 1924, which has since been repealed. However, The Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937, were framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 280 of the Cantonment Act. The earlier rules continue to hold the field. These Rules define 'servant' under Rule 2(f) to mean a person holding a substantive whole time appointment under a Board whether in receipt of a pension from public revenues or not. A teacher in a primary school run by the Cantonment Board will be covered by this definition. As far as the servants are concerned, the penalties against them are divided into 'major and minor' under Rule 11. Rule 12 provides that no order imposing any of the penalties specified in Clauses (iv) to (viii) of Rule 11 shall be made except after an enquiry held, as far as may be, in the manner provided in this rule and Rule 12-A. Rule 12(3) lays down that in an inquiry the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour, definite and distinct articles of charge, a statement of all relevant facts and a list of documents and witnesses are to be furnished to the employee concerned. Thereafter, the inquiry is to be held. If any adverse order is passed by the Executive Officer, an appeal is provided under Rule 13 to the Board. Against the decision of the appellate authority, a further appeal to the Officer Commanding-in-Chief is also provided under Rule 14 and a further revision to the Central Government is provided under Rule 15. This mechanism has been existing since prior to coming into force of MEPS Act and it cannot be said that it is in any way an inadequate remedy. MEPS Act is enacted to provide security and remedies to the teachers in private schools who were unprotected till then. As far as the servants including the teachers in Cantonment Board are concerned, they were already protected and have the remedies under that Act.
24. For the reasons stated above, we hold that the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 or MEPS Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 of said Act by the employees working in the schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. We answer the issue framed and referred to us accordingly.
25. In view of the above answer on the Issue framed above, both the writ petitions will have to be allowed. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute in both the writ petitions. The impugned order dated 6-1-2005 passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No. 20 of 2005 is quashed and set-aside. The appeal filed by the respondent No. 3 Smt. Suman Dattatraya Kadam in the School Tribunal shall stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.