Post Of Principal Rendering Services In Colleges Is Not Covered By Reservation Policy Of Maharashtra Educational Institutions Act: Bombay HC
While stating that the ‘Principal’ cannot be a post at par with other teachers, the Bombay High Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh Vs. Faculty Association [(1998) 4 SCC 01], to hold that the posts of principals rendering services in colleges are not covered by the reservation policy, and it is immaterial that multiple colleges are run by the same institution.
Accordingly, the High Court held that letters issued by the respondent calling upon the petitioner to get the roster verified first before proceeding with the selection for the post of principal is unsustainable in law.
Referring to the definition under Section 2(o) of the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers Cadre) Act, 2021, the Division Bench of Justice Mangesh S. Patil and Justice Shailesh P. Brahme observed that “the posts which are of equal grade pay are covered by teachers’ cadre and consequentially reservation policy applies to only those”.
The Bench, therefore, declared that the posts of principals in the colleges run by the petitioner institution are not governed by the policy of reservation and the provisions of the Act of 2021.
Advocate Ajay S. Deshpande appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate S. S. Thombre appeared for the Respondent.
The brief facts of the case were that the petitioner is an educational institution which runs Manikchand Pahade Law College, Aurangabad (Law college), and Dr. (Smt.) Indirabai Bhaskarrao Pathak Mahila Arts, Commerce and Science College, Aurangabad Mahila college). Both colleges are aided colleges. The petitioner is challenging the communications issued by the respondent, insisting the petitioner institution to get the roster verified from the competent authority and treating the posts of Principal of these two colleges amenable to the policy of reservation. The claim of the petitioner that the principal is an isolated post and reservation policy is not applicable stands rejected, impliedly. When the respondent informed the Joint Director that the policy of the reservation and the provisions of the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers Cadre) Act, 2021 are applicable to the post of principal and that as per Section 2(61) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, the principal is included in the definition of teacher, it is the grievance of the petitioner that he was directed to secure verification of roster for the post of principal in both the colleges. The claim of the petitioner that the post of principal is an isolated post and it is not amenable to the policy of reservation, was turned down by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner approached the High Court.
After considering the submission and perusing the definition of ‘principal’ as per Section 2(61) of the Act of 2016, the Bench found that the principal is representative of the college to the university, the Department of education, to the public at large, and the grade pay of the principal is distinct from the grade pay of the teacher.
Considering the duties to be discharged by the principal, he is placed on the highest pedestal, and there is no equal grade pay for the principal and other teachers, added the Bench.
The High Court went on to elucidate that definition in Section 2(o) of the Act of 2021 cannot be construed to mean that the principal is at par with the teachers for all other purposes, especially the reservation.
“In order to ensure adequate representation of the reserved categories in the direct recruitment in the teacher’s cadre in the educational institutions the Government considered it expedient to enact a law”, added the Court.
The High Court, therefore, refused to accept the contention of the respondents that the definition of Section 2(61) of the Act of 2016 covers the principal and he should be regarded as part and parcel of the teachers’ cadre.
The Bench explained that the Act of 2016 mainly pertains to the establishment of universities, their functionaries, affiliated colleges, etc, and it does not deal with the policy of the reservation, the modalities to be followed and the category-wise reservation, etc.
Stating that the Act of 2021 being a special act would prevail over the Act of 2016, the Bench clarified that the definition of Section 2(61) of the Act of 2016 will not help the respondents to bring the principal within the sweep of ‘teacher’ or ‘teachers’ cadre’.
The High Court, therefore, directed the respondents to process the proposal of the petitioner for approving the advertisement and granting permission to recruit the posts of principals by following the due procedure of law as early as possible.
Cause Title: Marathwada Legal and General Education Society v. Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University and Ors.
Click here to read/download the Judgment
