Pratik Vishnuprasad Dwivedi, And ... vs The Education Officer (Primary) ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2980 Bom

                                                                                                               wp.975.16+
                                                                 1




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




                                                                                     
                                                                ...

WRIT PETITION NO. 975/2016 AND

WRIT PETITION NO. 1333/2016 W.P.NO.975/2016

1. Bhartiya Seva Acharya Education Society

Through its Secretary Shri Bharat Mahadeo Parate R/o Vinoba Bhave nagar, Nagpur.

2. Ku.Swati Ramesh Naik Aged 25 years, occu: service as

Shikshan Sevak R/o Kanhan, Tq.Parshioni, Dist. Nagpur. ..PETITIONERS

v e r s u s

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. .. ...RESPONDENTS

...........................................................................................................................

Mr. R.S. Parsodkar, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. S.M.Ghodeswar, Asst.Govt.Pleader for Respondents 1 & 2

............................................................................................................................

wp.975.16+

W.P.NO. 1333/2016

1. Pratik Vishnuprasad Dwivedi

Age : 25 years, occu: service R/o Bhandeplot Square, Nagpur.

2. Ku.Priti Sukhdeorao Ingle Age: 29 years, occu: service

R/o Maskasath, Itwari, Nagpur.

3. Sachin Mahadeo More Age: 27 years, occu: service

R/o Vidyanagar, Nagpur.

4. Alhad Bhagwanji Chakole Age: 26 years, occu; service R/o Kharbi Road, Nagpur. ..PETITIONERS

v e r s u s

1. The Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.

2. The Deputy Director of Education Nagpur Division, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

3. Keshav Nagar Sanskrutik Sanstha A society registered under the Societies Registration Act and also a Public Trust

registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 having its office at Keshav nagar Higher Primary School, Jagnade Square, Nandanwan, Nagpur : represented through its Trustee and Secretary.

4. The Head Master Keshav nagar Higher Primary School, Jagnade Square, Nandanwan, Nagpur. .. ...RESPONDENTS ...........................................................................................................................

Mr. S.S.Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Bharti Maldhure, Advocate for Respondent no.1 A.M.Balpande, Asst.Govt.Pleader for Respondent no. 2 Mr.Anand Parchure, Advocate for Respondents 3 & 4 ............................................................................................................................

                                                                                         wp.975.16+





                                                                                            
                                             CORAM:    SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK   &
                                                            MRS . SWAPNA  JOSHI, JJ
                                                                                   . 
                                             DATED :        17th  June,  2016




                                                                    

ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

Since the issue involved in the Writ Petitions is identical, they are

heard together and are decided by this common judgment.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Writ Petitions are

heard finally at the stage of admission, with the consent of the learned counsel

for the parties.

By these Writ Petitions, the petitioners challenge the order of the

Education Officer (Primary), dated 4.2.2016, cancelling the approval to the

appointment of the petitioners, on the post of Shikshan Sevak.

The petitioners were appointed on the post of Shikshan Sevak

and the Education Officer had granted approval to their appointments. By an

order dated 23.7.2015, the Education Officer cancelled the approval. The

petitioners challenged the orders of cancellation of approval by filing separate

petitions. The said Writ Petitions were partly allowed and the matters were

remanded to the Education Officer for a fresh decision, in the matter of

cancellation of their approval after granting an opportunity of hearing. This

wp.975.16+

Court had quashed the orders of the Education Officer as they were passed in

violation of the principles of natural justice. It is the case of the petitioners that

as per the directions of this Court, the petitioners appeared before the

Education Officer-Shri Kolhe, on 17.11.2015 and though they were heard by

Education Officer-Shri Kolhe, the impugned orders are passed by Education

Officer-Shri Lokhande. It is stated that the authority hearing the petitioners

ought to have taken a decision in the matter of cancellation of approval of the

petitioners. It is stated that since the petitioners were heard by Shri Kolhe and

the decision is rendered by Shri Lokhande, the impugned orders are liable to

be quashed and set aside.

The learned counsel for the Zilla Parishad have supported the

orders of the Education Officer. It is stated that the petitioners had appeared

before Shri Kolhe on 17.11.2015 and had tendered the written submission. It

is stated that though the decision of cancellation of approval is rendered by

Shri Lokhande, Shri Lokhande has considered the written submissions. It is

stated that in this background, it cannot be said that the officer hearing the

petitioners ought to have decided the matters. It is stated that the petitioners

had fraudulently secured the appointment and hence the approval to their

appointment was rightly cancelled.

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the

wp.975.16+

impugned orders are indefensible and cannot be sustained. This Court had,

while partly allowing the Writ Petitions filed by the petitioners, directed the

respondent-Education Officer to decide the matter relating to the cancellation

of approval to their appointments, after personally hearing them. The

petitioners were directed to appear before the Education Officer on

17.11.2015. Shri Kolhe, was then holding the charge of the Education

Officer. The petitioners had appeared before Shri Kolhe and had also tendered

the written submissions. Before a decision was taken in the matter of

cancellation of the approval of the petitioners, Shri Lokhande took charge of

the post of Education Officer. Shri Lokhande did not call the petitioners for

hearing. Only by looking into the file and on considering the written

submissions tendered by the petitioners, Shri Lokhande cancelled the approval

to the appointment of the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners have

rightly submitted that the order of cancellation of approval of the petitioners

could not have been passed by Shri Lokhande when the petitioners were heard

by Shri Kolhe, on 17.11.2015. Merely because the petitioners had submitted

the written submissions before Shri Kolhe, it cannot be said that Shri Lokhande

was entitled to look into the written submissions and pass the order, in the

matter of cancellation of approval to the appointment of the petitioners

without personally hearing them. This Court had, while allowing the Writ

Petitions filed by the petitioners, directed the Education Officer to personally

hear the petitioners. If the petitioners were heard by Shri Kolhe, Shri

wp.975.16+

Lokhande would not be in a position to gauge what was orally submitted by

the petitioners before Shri Kolhe.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petitions are partly

allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The matter is

remanded to the Education Officer for fresh decision in the matter of

cancellation of approval to the appointment of the petitioners, in accordance

with law. The petitioners undertake to remain present before the Education

Officer on 11th July 2016, so that the notice to the petitioners could be

dispensed with. It is needless to mention that the petitioners are entitled to

the salary as the impugned orders are quashed and set aside.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no orders as to

costs.

                             JUDGE                                     JUDGE
    sahare