Supreme Court Upholds Shikshan Sevak Scheme, Stresses Judicial Discipline

The Supreme Court addressed the validity of the Shikshan Sevak Scheme in Maharashtra, focusing on the appointment of teachers on an honorarium basis. The Court emphasized judicial discipline and overturned the modifications made by the Aurangabad bench of the High Court, stating that coordinate benches should not alter each other's orders without proper referral. The judgment aimed to maintain consistency and clarity in the scheme's implementation, ensuring uniformity and respect for decisions within the High Court.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Validity of the Shikshan Sevak Scheme for appointment of teachers on an honorarium basis in Maharashtra.
2. Interpretation of the directions issued by the division bench of the High Court of judicature at Bombay.
3. Modification of the scheme by the division bench at Aurangabad bench and its impact on the implementation.
4. Judicial discipline and the authority of a coordinate bench to overturn the decision of another coordinate bench.

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court was presented with a case challenging the Shikshan Sevak Scheme in Maharashtra, which aimed to appoint teachers on an honorarium basis. The scheme outlined various provisions, including the appointment duration, honorarium amounts for different teacher categories, absorption into regular service after three years, and payment modalities. The division bench of the Bombay High Court issued interim directions specifying the application of the scheme to aided institutions only, exceptions for part-time teachers, surplus teachers, and those with past service history, as well as provisions for reserve posts and appointment procedures.

2. Subsequently, a writ petition was filed before the Aurangabad bench of the same High Court, seeking modifications to the scheme's application in primary schools statewide. The division bench at Aurangabad made alterations to the scheme based on the earlier Bombay bench's directions. The Solicitor General representing the State of Maharashtra acknowledged the modified scheme's effectiveness but highlighted implementation challenges due to conflicting orders from different benches.

3. The Supreme Court opined that the Aurangabad bench should not have altered the Bombay bench's order without proper referral to the Chief Justice for resolution. Emphasizing the importance of judicial discipline, the Court deemed the Aurangabad bench's order unsustainable and quashed it. The Court clarified that the primary teachers' appointments under question would not be affected, allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order without imposing costs.

4. The judgment underscores the significance of maintaining consistency and respect for decisions made by coordinate benches within the same High Court. The Court's decision to nullify the Aurangabad bench's order aimed to uphold judicial discipline and prevent conflicting interpretations of the scheme's application and modifications, ensuring clarity and uniformity in the implementation of the Shikshan Sevak Scheme in Maharashtra.

---