Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 87 Bom
Judgement Date : 25 February, 2016
WP5766.15 (J).odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5766 OF 2015
1] Sudhir son of Moreshwar Parkhi,
Aged about 26 years,
Occupation - Teacher,
Resident of Teachers colony,
Wardha Road, Kondhali, Tahsil - Katol,
District- Nagpur.
2] Ku. Tapsya daughter of Vijayrao Watkar,
Aged about 26 years,
Occupation - Teacher,
Resident of New Subhedar Layout,
Nagpur. .. Petitioners
.. Versus ..
1] The State of Maharashtra, through
its Secretary, School Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2] Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
3] Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Region, Nagpur.
4] Headmaster, St. Vincent Primary School,
Medical Square, Nagpur.
5] Headmaster, Tapsya Vidya Mandir,
Manewada, Ring Road, Nagpur-34. .. Respondents
..........
Shri A.S. Dhore, counsel for the petitioners,
Shri N.S. Khubalkar, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 3,
Shri Shaikh Majid, counsel for the respondent no.2,
Shri A.D. Dangore, counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5.
..........
::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:37:24 :::
WP5766.15 (J).odt 2
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND
A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
DATED : FEBRUARY 25, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order of cancellation
of their approval, dated 23.7.2015, as the same has been passed without
granting an opportunity to the petitioners.
Shri Majid, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent no.2 - Zilla Parishad, Nagpur states that the case of the petitioners
is not like the other employees whose approval was cancelled without granting
an opportunity to them, by the order dated 23.7.2015. It is stated that the
petitioners would not be entitled to approval on merits. It is, however, fairly
admitted that it appears from the impugned order that the petitioners were not
heard before the impugned order was passed.
Since the impugned order is passed without granting an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the same is liable to be set aside. It
was incumbent on the part of the Education Officer to have heard the
petitioners before cancelling the approval to the appointment of the
petitioners.
Hence, the impugned order, so far as it relates to the petitioners,
is quashed and set aside. The respondent no.2 -Education Officer is free to
take appropriate action in the matter of cancellation of approval to the
appointments of the petitioners after hearing the petitioners and the
management. The petitioners and the management undertake to appear
before the respondent no.2 - Education Officer on 14.3.2016 so that issuance
of notice to the petitioners and the management could be dispensed with.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Gulande
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!