wps5910.16&6208.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 5910 of 2016
AND
Writ Petition No. 6208 of 2016
A. Writ Petition No. 5910 of 2016 :
Sau. Veena Ashok Umare,
aged 57 years,
occupation - service,
resident of Plot No. 40,
Yashwant Colony,
Nagpur Road,
Wardha,
Tq. & Distt. Wardha. ..... Petitioner.
Versus
1. Education Officer [Secondary],
Zilla Parishad,
Wardha,
Tq. & Distt. Wardha.
2. Wardha Education Society,
through its Secretary,
Mahadeopura, Wardha,
a Society registered under the
provisions of Societies Act
& Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.
3. Prakash son of Chintaman Nagrale,
aged 56 years,
occ : Service,
C/o New English High School,
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2017 01:01:20 :::
wps5910.16&6208.16
2
Wardha, Tq. &Distt. Wardha.
4. Smt. Ketki Dipal Tale,
aged 52 years,
occupation - service,
C/o New English High School,
Wardha, Tq. & Distt. Wardha. .... Respondents.
*****
Mr. Prashant A. Gode, Adv., for the petitioner.
Ms. R. V. Kalia, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent no.1.
Ms. Smita Dashputra, Adv., for respondent no.3.
*****
B. Writ Petition No. 6208 of 2016 :
Sau. Shailaja Chandrakant Shrikhande
@ Shailaja V. Kadu,
aged 56 years,
occupation - service,
resident of Bachelor Road,
Murarka Layout,
Lahri Nagar, Wardha,
Distt. Wardha. ..... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2017 01:01:20 :::
wps5910.16&6208.16
3
3. Education Officer [Secondary],
Zilla Parishad,
Wardha,
Tq. & Distt. Wardha.
4. Wardha Education Society,
through its Secretary,
Mahadeopura, Wardha.
5. Shri Prakash son of Chintamanrao Nagrale,
resident of C/o New English High School
& Junior College, Wardha,
Distt. Wardha.
6. Sau. Ketki Sane,
resident of C/o New English High
School, Wardha,
Tq. & Distt. Wardha. .... Respondents.
*****
Mr. P. P. Thakare, Adv., for the petitioner.
Ms. R. V. Kalia, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Sanjay Ghude, Adv., for respondent no.5.
Mr. S.V. Sohoni, Adv., for respondent no.6.
*****
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI AND
A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
Date : 29th March, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT [Per B. R. Gavai, J.]: ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2017 01:01:20 ::: wps5910.16&6208.16 4
01. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.
02. Both the petitioners challenge the order dated 27th September, 2016.
03. We will not go into the merits of the matter, inasmuch as we find that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the short ground of procedural illegality. A perusal of the record would reveal that in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 172 and 174 of 2015 on 12th January, 2016, the Education Officer was directed to decide the issue of seniority. The Education Officer held 18th August, 1986 as the date of appointment of the writ petitioner - Smt. Shailaja Chandrakant Shrikhande, and the Writ Petitioner - Sau. Veena Ashok Umare, 1st December, 1983, for the purposes of seniority.
04. However, perusal of the affidavits in the matters would reveal that the Education Officer has reviewed his order. Perusal of paragraph 12 thereof itself would further reveal that the Education Officer has himself admitted that he has reviewed his order dated 17th March, 2016.
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2017 01:01:20 :::
wps5910.16&6208.16 5
05. It is a settled principle of law that power of review is not an inherent power. Unless a statute specifically or by necessary implication provides a power for review, an authority cannot invoke such power of review. Under the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, or the Rules framed thereunder, there is no power with the Education Officer to review an order passed by him under Rule 12 of the Rules. In that view of the matter, we find that the Education Officer had no power to review the earlier order passed by him.
06. In the result, the Writ Petitions deserve to be allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The earlier order passed by the Education Officer dated 17th March, 2016 is restored. Needless to state that all the consequences shall follow.
Judge Judge
-0-0-0-0-
|hedau|
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2017 01:01:20 :::
wps5910.16&6208.16
6
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2017 01:01:20 :::