Bombay High Court
Shri. Sandeep Manikrao Chawat vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 8 December, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
0812WP6144.16-Judgment 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6144 OF 2016
PETITIONER :- Shri Sandeep Manikrao Chawat, aged about
51 years, occu.service, R/o Borgaon Hatla,
Tah. Arvi, District - Wardha.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary,
ig Department of Education, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2. Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur.
3. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla
Parishad, Wardha, Distt. Wardha.
4. Shri Ravindra Hariram Munne, Alleged
President of Saraswati Mata Vidya Prasarak
Mandal, Thanegaon, Tah.Karanja, Distt.
Wardha.
5. Saraswati Mata Vidya Prasarak Mandal,
Thanegaon, through Its President Shri
Bhagwant Bapurao Kadve, aged about 65
years, R/o : Thanegaon, Tah. Karanja, Disttt.
Wardha.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.C.B.Dharmadhikari, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. A.A.Madiwale, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
None for the respondent Nos.4 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 08.12.2016
0812WP6144.16-Judgment 2/4
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition
is heard finally, as all the respondents are duly served with the notice.
By this writ petition, the petitioner impugns the order of
the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur dated 03/10/2016 staying
the order of the Education Officer dated 01/10/2016 granting approval
to the promotion of the petitioner on the post of headmaster.
When the headmaster in the school run by the respondent
No.5-Society retired, the petitioner was promoted to the post of
headmaster in terms of the judgment of this court. The Education
Officer granted approval to the promotion of the petitioner by the order
dated 01/10/2016. Without granting an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner, the order of the Education Officer dated 01/10/2016 was
stayed by the Deputy Director of Education by the impugned order.
Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the Deputy Director of Education did not have
jurisdiction to entertain a complaint filed by the respondent No.4 and
stay the order of the Education Officer, dated 01/10/2016. It is stated
that if the respondent No.4 was aggrieved by the order of the Education
Officer granting approval to the promotion of the petitioner, the
respondent No.4 should have availed the appropriate legal remedy. It is
0812WP6144.16-Judgment 3/4
stated that the Deputy Director of Education is not empowered to sit in
appeal over the decision of the Education Officer. It is stated that there
is nothing in the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions
of Service) Act, 1977 and the Rules framed thereunder that permits the
Deputy Director of Education to interfere with an order of approval
passed by the Education Officer. It is stated that the impugned order
suffers from a jurisdictional error and the same is liable to be set aside.
It is stated that before passing the order, the Deputy Director of
Education has not heard the petitioner.
Shri Madiwale, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, fairly admits that the
petitioner was not granted any opportunity whatsoever, before the
impugned order was passed by the Deputy Director of Education. The
learned Assistant Government Pleader is not able to point out any
provision of law that permits the Deputy Director of Education to test
the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Education
Officer granting approval to a teacher or a headmaster, under the
provisions of the Act and the Rules.
As rightly stated on behalf of the petitioner, the impugned
order suffers from a jurisdictional error and is liable to be set aside.
There is nothing in the Act or the Rules that empowers the Deputy
Director of Education to entertain a challenge against the order of the
Education Officer granting approval to the appointment of the
0812WP6144.16-Judgment 4/4
headmaster. If the respondent No.4 had any grievance about the
promotion of the petitioner to the post of headmaster and to the order
granting approval to the said promotion, the respondent No.4 should
have availed the appropriate legal remedy. The respondent No.4
however approached the Deputy Director of Education and the said
authority entertained the complaint without any authority of law. Since
the impugned order is bad-in-law, the same is liable to be set aside.
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
KHUNTE
