1 J-WP-3985-17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3985 OF 2017
1. Amol S/o Manik Gote,
Age about 25 yrs.,
Occ : Service as Assistant Teacher,
R/o C/o Shrikrushna Vidyalaya,
Tondgaon, R/o Tondgaon,
Tal. and Dist. Washim.
2. Ganesh s/o Suresh Gote,
Age about 24 years,
Occ : Service as Senior Cleak,
R/o C/o Shrikrushna Vidyalaya,
Tondgaon, R/o Tondgaon,
Tal. & Dist. Washim.
3. Sunil s/o Kundlik Kamble,
Age about 31 yrs.,
Occ : Service as Laboratory Assistant,
R/o C/o Shrikrushna Vidyalaya,
Tondgaon, R/o Tondgaon,
Tal. and Dist. Washim.
4. Vilas s/o Baliram More,
Age about 33 yrs.,
Occ : Service as Assistant Teacher,
R/o C/o Shrikrushna Vidyalaya,
Tondgaon, R/o Tondgaon,
Tal. and Dist. Washim.
5. Ashok s/o Dnyanba Bhisade,
Age about 26 years,
Occ : Service as Assistant Teacher,
R/o C/o Shrikrushna Vidyalaya,
Tondgaon, R/o Tondgaon,
Tal. and Dist. Washim.
6. Nitin s/o Ramesh Raut,
Age about 24 yrs.,
Occ : Service as Shikshan Sewak,
R/o C/o Shrikrushna Vidyalaya,
Tondgaon, R/o Tondgaon,
Tal. and Dist. Washim. ..... PETITIONERS
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2018 01:41:19 :::
2 J-WP-3985-17.odt
...V E R S U S...
1. The Deputy Director (Education)
Amravati Division, Amravati.
2. The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Washim.
3. The Head Master,
Shrikrushna Vidyalaya, Tondgaon,
Tal. and Dist. Washim.
4. Dhnyaneshwar Shikshan Santha,
through its Secretary, Tondgaon,
Distt. Washim through its President
Ashok Nivrutti Gote. ... RESPONDENTS
Shivaji Shahji Gote,
Secretary of Dnyaneshwar Shikshan
Prasarak Sanstha Tondgaon,
Aged : 64 yrs., Occ : Nil,
R/o Tondgaon, Tq. & Dist. Washim. ... INTERVENOR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P. S. Kshirsagar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shri R. S. Kurekar, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
Shri P. S. Patil, Advocate for Intervenor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:-
SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATED :
05/01/2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER SMT. VASANTI A NAIK , J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2018 01:41:19 :::
3 J-WP-3985-17.odt By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order of the Education Officer, dated 18/05/2017 cancelling the approval to the appointment of the petitioners on teaching and non- teaching posts.
Admittedly, there are two factions in the management of the society and the cases in that regard are pending before the authorities. Certain complaints were made by one faction of the management against the appointment of the petitioners on the teaching and non-teaching posts and also against the approval granted to their appointments. An enquiry was conducted in the complaints and according to the enquiry report, the appointments of the petitioners were not made by following the due process of law. The approval orders issued in favour of the petitioners by the Education Officer were cancelled by the impugned order, dated 18/05/2017.
Inter alia, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as it is passed in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that no show cause notice was served on the petitioners before cancelling the orders of their approval. It is stated that not only was the enquiry conducted in an illegal manner but the enquiry report was also not served on the petitioners before the impugned order, dated 18/05/2017 was passed. ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2018 01:41:19 :::
4 J-WP-3985-17.odt It is stated that without furnishing a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioners and without granting any opportunity to them, whatsoever, to show cause notice as to why their approval should not be cancelled, the impugned order was passed.
Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 has supported the order of the Education Officer. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that as per the findings in the enquiry report, the appointment of the petitioners was not made in accordance with law and approval was wrongfully granted to their appointments though they were not duly appointed. It is fairly admitted that there is nothing in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 to point out that the copy of the enquiry report was served on the petitioners and that the petitioners were served with a notice asking them to show cause as to why their approval should not be cancelled. It is fairly stated that it does not appear from the report that a show cause notice was served on the petitioners before cancellation of their approval and that the enquiry report was supplied to them.
It is apparent on hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the impugned order suffers from illegality ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2018 01:41:19 ::: 5 J-WP-3985-17.odt and the same is liable to be set aside. Since approval was granted to the appointment of the petitioners, the Education Officer was duty bound to serve a show cause notice on the petitioners before taking the drastic step of cancellation of their approval. Not only was a show cause notice not served on the petitioners before the impugned order was passed but the copy of the enquiry report was also not served on them. In the absence of the copy of the enquiry report, the petitioners could not have effectively defended the show cause notice, even if it had been served on them. In any case, since no show cause notice was served on the petitioners and the copy of the enquiry report was not served on them, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Education Officer is free to take action against the petitioners, in accordance with law.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Choulwar
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2018 01:41:19 :::