Bombay High Court
Mrs. Sheela W/O. Dhanraj Tidke vs Ashok Shriram Dandekar And Others on 22 July, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
904-J-WP-4065-15 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.4065 OF 2015
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1252 OF 2016
Mrs Sheela W/o Dhanraj Tidke
Aged about 51 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. K.D.K. College Road,
Darshan Colony, N.I.T. Layout,
Nandanwan, Nagpur. ... Petitioner.
-vs-
1. Ashok Shriram Dandekar,
Aged about 56 years, Occ. Special Teacher,
R/o Nagoba Galli No.1. Mahal,
Nagpur.
2. Bharat Muk Vidyalaya Society,
through its President, Office at 3,
Jagnade Chowk, Nagpur,
3. The District Social Welfare Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
4. The Regional Deputy Commissioner,
Social Welfare Department, Nagpur Division.
Nagpur. ... Respondents.
Ms Kirti Satpute, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri S. S. Ghate, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri M. Masodkar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Ms T. Khan, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : July 22, 2016
Oral Judgment :
While hearing C.A.No.1252/2016 for vacating the interim relief,
904-J-WP-4065-15 2/4
the learned counsel for the parties have been heard on merits also. With
consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for
final disposal.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 04/07/2015 passed
by the respondent No.4 in the appeal preferred by the respondent No.1. The
respondent No.1 was aggrieved by the order granting promotion to the
petitioner. By the impugned order, the respondent No.4 has cancelled the
order of promotion issued in favour of the petitioner and has issued further
directions to prepare the seniority list with a direction to treat the
respondent No.1 to be senior amongst them. After hearing the respective
counsel, it is found that one of the challenges to the impugned order is that
the petitioner was not heard by the respondent No.4 before passing the
impugned order. In paragraphs 10 and 11 of the writ petition, it has been
specifically pleaded that after the proceedings were adjourned on
18/06/2015, the next date of hearing was not intimated to the petitioner due
to which the petitioner and her counsel could not remain present. It is
further stated that only after receiving the notice of caveat filed on behalf of
the respondent No.1 that the petitioner got knowledge of the impugned
order. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.4 these averments
have not been controverted. The assertions made in paragraphs 10 and 11
of the order would therefore have to be accepted.
904-J-WP-4065-15 3/4
2. It is also found from the record that various other orders passed in
reference to the service of the petitioner and the respondent No.1 are the
subject matter of other writ petitions. These writ petitions are still pending.
In this background I find that as the impugned order was passed without
granting opportunity to the petitioner, the same is liable to be set aside with
a further direction to consider the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 afresh.
While doing so it will be open for the respondent No.4 to consider relevant
subsequent events that can be placed on record by either of the parties.
3. In view of aforesaid, the order dated 04/07/2015 is set aside.
The proceedings are remitted to the respondent No.4 for fresh adjudication.
The parties are at liberty to place on record subsequent events which
according to them have bearing on the proceedings. The appeal shall be
decided on its own merits and in accordance with law.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
C.A. No.1252/2016 stands disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
Asmita
904-J-WP-4065-15 4/4
-: C E R T I F I C A T E :-
" I certify that this Judgment/order uploaded is a true and
correct copy of the original signed Judgment/order."
Uploaded by :
Asmita A. Bhandakkar
Personal Assistant
Uploaded on :
26/07/2016
