Gulshan S/O Prakash Tidke vs Education Officer, (Secondary) ...

                                       1                 WP-3131-17.odt         



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                      WRIT PETITION NO.3131 OF 2017


Gulshan s/o Prakash Tidke,
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Service,
R/o at Post Sakoli, Tq. Sakoli,
Dist. Bhandara                                ..             PETITIONER


                               .. Versus ..


1. Education Officer, (Secondary),
   Z.P. Bhandara, Tah. And Dist. Bhandara.

2. The Deputy Director of Education,
    Nagpur Division, Tah. And Dist. Nagpur.

3. Superintendent, Pau Unit (Secondary)
   Bhandara, Tah. And Dist. Bhandara.

4. Dhyaneshwar Vidhyalaya
   at Salebhata, Tah. Lakhani,
   Dist. Bhandara.

5. Rashtriya Shikshan Sanstha,
   Lakhani, Having Registration
   No.F42 (Bhandara) at Lakhani,
   Tah. Lakhani, Dist. Bhandara.              ..            RESPONDENTS


Mr. R. B. Dhore, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mrs. A.R. Kulkarni, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. A.P. Kalmegh, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5.
                     ...

              CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ.

ORAL JUDGMENT (per B.R. Gavai, J. )



1.            Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.          Heard finally by




::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2017                   ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2017 01:51:09 :::
                                    2                            WP-3131-17.odt         

consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The petitioner came to be appointed as Shikshan Sevak vide order dated 01.03.2012. An approval was granted to the appointment of the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak vide order dated 28.08.2013. Upon completion of three years service, the petitioner's services came to be regularised as Assistant Teacher. However, by the impugned order dated 05.05.2017, the approval granted came to be withdrawn.

3. This Court in catena of cases has taken a view that the Education Officer has no power to review his earlier order. It is settled law that unless the statue provides for a power of review, the authority cannot review its own order.

4. In that view of the matter, the order impugned is not sustainable. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No costs.

(Mrs. Swapna S. Joshi, J. ) (B.R. Gavai, J.) ...

halwai/p.s.

::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2017 01:51:09 :::