Bombay High Court
Anita Digambar Tagde (After ... vs The State Of Maha., Thr. Sect., ... on 17 June, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp1571.16.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1571/2016
PETITIONER: Anita Digambar Tagde (After marriage
Mrs. Anita Nitin Gajbhiye),
aged 36 years, Occ. Service, r/o Plot No.21,
Mahavir Nagar, Ranala, Kamptee, District
Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra, through
its Secretary, Department of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, in front of Morris College,
Sitabuldi, Nagpur.
3. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
4. Walmiki Kalyan Kendra Shikshan Sanstha,
through its Secretary, Plot No.64,
Laghu Vetan Colony, Indora, Nagpur.
5. Walmiki Prathmik Shala, Bhim Nagar,
through its Headmaster, Kamptee,
Gaolipura, Kamptee, District Nagpur.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.S. Parsodkar, Advocate for petitioner
Shri J.Y. Ghurde, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2
Mrs. I.L. Bodade, Advocate for respondent no.3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 17.06.2016
wp1571.16.odt
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 petitioner challenges the order of the
Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur dated 4.2.2016
cancelling the approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of
'Shikshan Sevak'.
It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that when the
approval to the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled by the order,
dated 23.7.2015 without hearing the petitioner, the petitioner had
approached this Court in Writ Petition No.816/2016 and this Court had
quashed and set aside the order of cancellation of the approval and
directed the Education Officer (Primary) to decide the question in regard
to the cancellation of the approval after hearing the petitioner. It is the
case of the petitioner that after the remand of the matter to the Education
Officer, the petitioner was heard by Education Officer Shri Kolhe, whereas
the impugned order is passed by Education Officer Shri Lokhande. It is
stated that in the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that a fair
opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. It is stated that it is
well settled that the officer, who hears, is required to pass the orders.
wp1571.16.odt
Mrs. Bodade, the learned Counsel for the respondent - Zilla
Parishad states, on instructions from the Zilla Parishad, that the statement
made by the petitioner that Education Officer Shri Kolhe had heard the
petitioner and Education Officer Shri Lokhande has passed the impugned
order, is correct. It is stated that in the circumstances of the case, an
appropriate order may be passed.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears
that the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is well settled, as
submitted on behalf of the petitioner that an officer granting an
opportunity of hearing to a party is required to take a decision in the
matter. Granting of hearing by one officer and rendering of the decision
by the other is not permissible. In the instant case, admittedly, the
petitioner was heard by Shri Kolhe and the impugned order is passed by
Shri Lokhande. Shri Lokhande was, therefore, not in a position to gauge
what was canvassed by the petitioner before Shri Kolhe. In the
circumstances of the case, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and
set aside.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly
allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is
remanded to the Education Officer for a fresh decision after hearing the
petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to remain present before the
wp1571.16.odt
Education Officer on 11.7.2016, so that issuance of notice to the
petitioner could be dispensed with. It is needless to mention that as the
impugned order is set aside, the respondent - Zilla Parishad is liable to
pay the salary to the petitioner, till the decision in the matter of
cancellation of approval, is rendered.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
