Ku. Nilofar Nahim Mohammad Shamir vs The Education Officer ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4575 Bom

    WP 3202/16                                           1                           Judgment

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                       NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                                                         
                           WRIT PETITION No. 3202/2016




                                                                
    Ku.Nilofar Nahid Mohammad Shamir,
    Aged about adult, Occu. Service,
    R/o Ashrampura, Achalpur,
    Tq. Achalpur, Distt. Amravati.                                                   PETITIONER




                                                               
                                          .....VERSUS.....

    1.     The Education Officer (Secondary),
           Zilla Parishad, Amravati.




                                                    
    2.     The Deputy Director of Education,
           Amravati Division, Amravati.
    3.
                              
           Rahamaniya Education Society,
           through its President, Achalpur,
           Tq. Achalpur, Distt. Amravati.                                        RESPONDENTS
                             
                         Shri S.M. Vaishnav, counsel for the petitioner.
         Shri A.M. Balpande, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 & 2.
                                  None for the respondent no.3.


                                           CORAM :SMT.VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
      


                                                       MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.     

DATE : 9 TH AUGUST, 2016.

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.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the

Education Officer (Secondary), Amravati Division, Amravati, dated

20.05.2016 cancelling the order of absorption of the petitioner, dated

31.03.2016 in respondent no.3-Rahamaniya Education Society.

WP 3202/16 2 Judgment

3. The petitioner was an employee in a school run by Talha

Education Society. On 10.07.2012, the petitioner was declared surplus.

On 31.03.2016, the petitioner was absorbed in the respondent no.3-

Rahamaniya Education Society. The petitioner joined in the institute run

by the respondent no.3, on 05.04.2016. After more than a month of her

services in the school run by the respondent no.3, the Education Officer

passed the impugned order on 20.05.2016, cancelling the order of the

petitioner's absorption, dated 31.03.2016 only on the basis of some

complaints. The said order is impugned by the petitioner in the instant

petition.

4. Inter alia, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the

impugned order cannot be sustained as it is passed without granting an

opportunity to the petitioner. It is stated that before passing the

impugned order neither was a show cause notice served on the petitioner

nor was the petitioner heard. It is stated that the impugned order could

not have been passed after the petitioner joined the school run by the

respondent no.3-Society on 05.04.2016.

5. Shri Balpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing on behalf of the Education Officer, states that the Education

Officer was compelled to pass the order in view of the frequent

complaints made from the Secretary of the Talha Education Society,

WP 3202/16 3 Judgment

where there are two factions in the management. It is, however, fairly

admitted that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity before the

impugned order was passed.

6. In view of the admission of the fact in regard to the absence

of service of notice on the petitioner before the impugned order was

passed, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The order of

absorption of the petitioner in the school run by the respondent no.3-

Society could not have been cancelled without granting an opportunity to

the petitioner. Since admittedly, an opportunity was not granted to the

petitioner before the order of her absorption was cancelled, the impugned

order is liable to be quashed and set aside.

7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly

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





    APTE





     WP 3202/16                                          4                          Judgment

                                           CERTIFICATE




                                                                                       

I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and

correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order.

Uploaded by: Rohit D. Apte. Uploaded on : 11.08.2016.