Bombay High Court
Kiran S/O. Prabhakar Salankar And ... vs State Of Maha., Through ... on 15 April, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1/3 1504wp816.16-Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 816 OF 2016
PETITIONERS :- 1. Kiran s/o Prabhakar Salankar, aged 27 years,
Occ. Shikshan Sevak, r/o Shanti Nagar,
Nagpur.
2. Deepak Vasant Kombade, aged 25 years, occ.
Shikshan Sevak, r/o Kukde Layout, Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :-
ig 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary,
Department of Education, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur
Division, in front of Morris College,
Sitabuldi, Nagpur.
3. Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad,
Nagpur.
4. Sule Primary School, Shanti Nagar, Nagpur,
through its Headmaster.
5. Late Babulal Thakur Bahu Uddeshiya
Shikshan Sanstha, Katol, through its
Secretary Shri Milind Bawase, Sudampuri,
Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R.S.Parsodkar, counsel for the petitioners.
Mrs.A.R.Kulkarni, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mrs.B.P.Maldhure, counsel for the respondent No.3.
None for the respondent Nos.4 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 15.04.2016
2/3 1504wp816.16-Judgment
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is
heard finally as a notice of final disposal was issued by this Court on
05/02/2016 and all the respondents are duly served.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the order of
the Education Officer (Primary), dated 23/07/2015 cancelling the
approval to the appointments of the petitioners on the post of Shikshan
Sevak.
3. Inter alia, the impugned order is challenged by the
petitioners on the ground that the same has been passed in violation of
the principles of natural justice. According to the petitioners, the
petitioners were not heard before the order granting approval to the
appointment of the petitioners was cancelled.
4. Mrs.Maldhure, the learned counsel for the Education
Officer (Primary), fairly states that the petitioners were not heard
before the cancellation of their approval, though the Management was
heard. It is stated that an appropriate decision would be taken in the
matter of cancellation of approval after hearing the petitioners.
3/3 1504wp816.16-Judgment
5. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that a fair opportunity
of hearing was not granted to the petitioners before the approval order
was cancelled. The impugned order cannot be sustained, if the
petitioners were not heard before the cancellation of their approval.
6. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed and set aside.
The respondent-Education Officer (Primary) is free to pass appropriate
orders after hearing the petitioners. The petitioners undertake to remain
present before the Education Officer (Primary) on 02/05/2016 so that
issuance of notice to the petitioners could be dispensed with. It is
needless to mention that since the impugned order is set aside, the
petitioners would be entitled to the salary and the Education Officer
(Primary) is directed to release the arrears of salary in favour of the
petitioners within a period of four weeks. Rule is made absolute in the
aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
