Bombay High Court
Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Its ... on 25 April, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp177.16.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.177/2016
PETITIONERS: 1. Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
Va Karmachari Vyavsaik Sanstha,
Wardha, through its Secretary,
Sau. Vibha N. Date.
2. Krushak Vidyalaya & Junior College,
Wardha, Tah. and District - Wardha,
ig through its Headmaster.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary of School & Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
3. Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Wardha, Tah. and District - Wardha.
4. Panjabrao Jagannath Shende,
R/o C/o Shri Govindrao Bakde,
Sneh Nagar Mahila Ashram, Sewagram
Road, Wardha, Tah. and District - Wardha.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.S. Malokar, Advocate for petitioners
Shri P.S. Tembhare, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3
Shri P.S. Tiwari, Advocate for respondent no.4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 25.04.2016
wp177.16.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned Counsel
for the parties.
By this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the order of
the Education Officer - respondent no.3 revoking the order of cancelling
the approval to the appointment of the respondent no.4.
The respondent no.4 was appointed by the erstwhile
Management on 27.7.1999 as an Assistant Teacher. The services of the
respondent no.1 were orally terminated by the erstwhile Management
and the respondent no.4 challenged the termination in an appeal before
the School Tribunal. The appeal filed by the respondent no.4 was
dismissed by the School Tribunal. The respondent no.4 filed a writ
petition challenging the order of the dismissal of the appeal. This Court,
partly allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the School
Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits. After remand, the School Tribunal
again dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent no.4 after holding that
the appointment of the respondent no.4 in the school run by the
petitioner no.2 was not proper. The respondent no.4 had challenged the
said order in a writ petition before the learned Single Judge. It is
necessary to state at this juncture that the respondent - Education Officer
wp177.16.odt
had granted approval to the appointment of the respondent no.4 on
18.12.2001. The approval granted to the appointment of the respondent
no.4 was however cancelled by an order dated 13.11.2006. After the
appeal filed by the respondent no.4 was dismissed by the School Tribunal
in the second round of litigation, the respondent - Education Officer has
revoked the order cancelling the approval that is dated 13.11.2006 and
restored the approval to the appointment of the respondent no.4. The
order, dated 3.12.2015 revoking the order of cancellation of approval is
challenged by the petitioners in the instant petition.
It is stated on behalf of the petitioners that the Education
Officer could not have revoked the order cancelling the approval, dated
13.11.2006 when the appeal filed by the respondent no.4 against the
order of termination was dismissed by the School Tribunal and the writ
petition filed by the respondent no.4 against the order of dismissal was
pending. It is stated that after the School Tribunal had upheld the order
of termination of the respondent no.4 by dismissing the appeal filed by
him, the Education Officer could not have restored the approval granted
to the appointment of the respondent no.4.
Shri Tembhare, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the Education Officer submitted that after the
School Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent no.4,
wp177.16.odt
normally, the Education Officer should not have revoked the order of
cancellation of the approval to the appointment of the respondent no.4. It
is submitted that in the circumstances of the case, the Education Officer
must have thought that the order of approval was wrongly cancelled and
hence, the approval must have been restored.
Shri Tiwari, the learned Counsel for the respondent no.4
submitted that the services of the respondent no.4 were terminated
without following the due procedure prescribed by law. It is submitted
that no opportunity whatsoever was granted to the respondent no.4
before termination of his services. It is submitted that the termination of
services of the respondent no.4 and the revocation of his approval are two
separate issues. It is submitted that merely because the appeal filed by the
respondent no.4 was dismissed, it cannot be said that the Education
Officer could not have revoked the order cancelling the approval to the
appointment of the respondent no.4.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that
the action on the part of the Education Officer in revoking the order of
cancellation of approval to the appointment of the respondent no.4 after
the appeal filed by the respondent no.4 was dismissed by the School
Tribunal by holding that the appointment of the respondent no.4 was not
made in accordance with law, is clearly illegal. The services of the
wp177.16.odt
respondent no.4 were allegedly terminated by the erstwhile Management
and the respondent no.4 had challenged the order of termination before
the School Tribunal after the order granting approval to the appointment
of the respondent no.4 was cancelled. The School Tribunal framed the
preliminary issues and found that the appointment of the respondent no.4
was illegal and not made in accordance with law. After the School
Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent no.4 and the writ
petition filed by the respondent no.4 was pending before the learned
Single Judge, there was no propriety in the action of the Education
Officer of revoking the order cancelling the approval to the appointment
of the respondent no.4. After the appeal filed by the respondent no.4 was
dismissed by the School Tribunal, the Education Officer had no business
to consider revoking the order cancelling the approval, and that too, after
a period of nearly ten years. The matter was pending before the learned
Single Judge and appropriate orders could have been passed by the
Education Officer, if the writ petition filed by the respondent no.4 against
the order of the School Tribunal was allowed and if it was held that the
termination was bad in law and the respondent no.4 was entitled to
reinstatement in service. However, after the School Tribunal held that the
appointment of the respondent no.4 was not proper and the writ petition
filed by the respondent no.4 was pending, the Education Officer probably
wp177.16.odt
on the threat of the respondent no.4 that he would go on hunger strike
illegally revoked the order, dated 13.11.2006, thereby reviving the
approval to the appointment of the respondent no.4. The action of the
Education Officer is clearly illegal and cannot be sustained.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
