Bombay High Court
Ashok Ramchandra Patil And ... vs Gettanjali Prakash Patil And ... on 8 March, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP. 10004/15 & others
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.10004 OF 2015
1 Ashok s/o Ramchandra Patil
Age - 60 years, Occ - Agriculture
& Trustee of the People Education
ig Society, Mandane,
R/o - At Village Mandane,
Tq. Shahada, Dist - Nandurbar.
2 Bhimsing s/o Harsing Pawara
Age- 65 years, Occ - Agriculture
& Director, People Education
Society, Mandane,
R/o - At village Bhongare,
Post - Chandsauli,
Tq. Shahada, Dist - Nandurbar.
...Petitioners...
Versus
1 Geetanjali w/o Prakash Patil
Age - 32 years, Occ-Assistant Teacher,
R/o - Village Mandane,
Tq. Shahada, Dist - Nandurbar.
2 Pankaj s/o Jijabrao Pawar
Age - 34 years, Occ - Assistant
Teacher, R/o - Village Mandane,
Tq. Shahada, Dist - Nandurbar.
3 Deepak s/o Sahebrao Pawar
Age - 40 years, Occu - Clerk,
R/o - Village Mandane,
Tq. Shahada, Dist - Nandurbar.
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:13:52 :::
WP. 10004/15 & others
- 2 -
4 Dhairyashil s/o Chandrakant Patil(More)
Age - 34 years, Occ - Clerk,
R/o - Village Mandane,
Tq. Sahada, Dist - Nandurbar.
5 People Education Society, Mandane,
Bearing Trust Registration No.F-57,
Through its Chairman, having
office at Village Mandane,
Tq. Shahada, Dist - Nandurbar.
6 Head Master,
Adarsh Vidyalaya and Kanishtha
Vidyalaya, Tq. Shahada,
ig Dist - Nandurbar.
7 Deputy Director of Education
Nashik Division, Nashik,
Dist - Nashik.
8
Education Officer (Secondary)
Zillha Parishad, Nandurbar,
Dist - Nandurbar.
...Respondents...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.10622 OF 2015
1 Ashok s/o Ramchandra Patil
Age - 60 years, Occ - Agriculture
& Trustee of the People Education
Society, Mandane,
R/o - At Village Mandane,
Tq. Shahada, Dist - Nandurbar.
2
Bhimsing s/o Harsing Pawara
Age- 65 years, Occ - Agriculture
& Director, People Education
Society, Mandane,
R/o - At village Bhongare,
Post - Chandsauli,
Tq. Shahada, Dist - Nandurbar.
...Petitioners...
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:13:52 :::
WP. 10004/15 & others
- 3 -
1 Deepak s/o Sahebrao Pawar
Age - 40 years, Occ - Clerk,
R/o - Village Mandane, Tq. Shahada,
Dist - Nandurbar.
2 People Education Society, Mandane,
Bearing Trust Registration No.F-57,
Through its Chairman, having
office at Village Mandane,
Tq. Shahada, Dist - Nandurbar.
3 Head Master,
Adarsh Vidyalaya and Kanishtha
Vidyalaya, Tq. Shahada,
ig Dist - Nandurbar.
4 Deputy Director of Education
Nashik Division, Nashik,
Dist - Nashik.
5 Education Officer (Secondary)
Zillha Parishad, Nandurbar,
Dist - Nandurbar.
...Respondents...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.10624 OF 2015
1 Ashok s/o Ramchandra Patil
Age - 60 years, Occ - Agriculture
& Trustee of the People Education
Society, Mandane,
R/o - At Village Mandane,
Tq. Shahada, Dist - Nandurbar.
2 Bhimsing s/o Harsing Pawara
Age- 65 years, Occ - Agriculture
& Director, People Education
Society, Mandane,
R/o - At village Bhongare,
Post - Chandsauli,
Tq. Shahada, Dist - Nandurbar.
...Petitioners...
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:13:52 :::
WP. 10004/15 & others
- 4 -
Versus
1 Pankaj s/o Jijabrao Pawar
Age - 34 years, Occ - Assistant teacher
R/o - Village Mandane, Tq. Shahada,
Dist - Nandurbar.
2 People Education Society, Mandane,
Bearing Trust Registration No.F-57,
Through its Chairman, having
office at Village Mandane,
Tq. Shahada, Dist - Nandurbar.
3
ig Head Master,
Adarsh Vidyalaya and Kanishtha
Vidyalaya, Tq. Shahada,
Dist - Nandurbar.
4 Deputy Director of Education
Nashik Division, Nashik,
Dist - Nashik.
5 Education Officer (Secondary)
Zillha Parishad, Nandurbar,
Dist - Nandurbar.
...Respondents...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.10628 OF 2015
1 Ashok s/o Ramchandra Patil
Age - 60 years, Occ - Agriculture
& Trustee of the People Education
Society, Mandane,
R/o - At Village Mandane,
Tq. Shahada, Dist - Nandurbar.
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:13:52 :::
WP. 10004/15 & others
- 5 -
2
Bhimsing s/o Harsing Pawara
Age- 65 years, Occ - Agriculture
& Director, People Education
Society, Mandane,
R/o - At village Bhongare,
Post - Chandsauli,
Tq. Shahada, Dist - Nandurbar.
...Petitioners...
` Versus
1 Dhairyashil s/o Chandrakant Patil
(More)
Age - Major, Occ - Clerk,
ig R/o - Village Mandane, Tq. Shahada,
Dist - Nandurbar.
2 People Education Society, Mandane,
Bearing Trust Registration No.F-57,
Through its Chairman, having
office at Village Mandane,
Tq. Shahada, Dist - Nandurbar.
3 Head Master,
Adarsh Vidyalaya and Kanishtha
Vidyalaya, Tq. Shahada,
Dist - Nandurbar.
4 Deputy Director of Education
Nashik Division, Nashik,
Dist - Nashik.
5 Education Officer (Secondary)
Zillha Parishad, Nandurbar,
Dist - Nandurbar.
...Respondents...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
.....
Shri Sandesh R. Patil, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Ajinkya Kale, Advocate h/f Shri S.B. Talekar,
Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 4.
Shri R.S. Pawar, Advocate h/f Shri N.E. Deshmukh,
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:13:52 :::
WP. 10004/15 & others
- 6 -
Advocate for respondent nos.5 & 6.
Shri A.P. Basarkar, AGP for respondent nos.7 & 8.
.....
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE: 08.03.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1] By Court notice, all the respondents have been
served. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
finally by the consent of the parties.
2] While issuing notice, the issue of the locus
standi of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 in filing these
petitions was kept open considering the fact that the
petitioners were not the parties to the appeals before
the School Tribunal at Nashik.
3] Shri Patil, learned Advocate for the
petitioners, submits that both are presently the trustees
of respondent no.5 - trust. There is no dispute as
regards their status of being trustees of the said trust
as on date. The original appellants, who are respondent
no.1 in all these matters, are the close relative of the
President and the Secretary of the trust. Respondent
no.1 - Pankaj Jijabrao Pawar in Writ Petition
No.10624/2015 is the son of the President of the trust
WP. 10004/15 & others
- 7 -
namely Jijabrao T. Pawar.
4] Shri Patil, therefore, submits that the
President and the Secretary of the trust as well as the
Head Master of the concerned school, who was the
respondent before the School Tribunal, are not
challenging the impugned judgment of the School Tribunal
since they intend to protect the interest of the original
appellants, who are close relatives.
5] Shri Patil has strenuously contended that the
impugned judgment of the School Tribunal dated 28.3.2014
in the appeals filed by respondent no.1 in all these
matters is a perverse and erroneous conclusion.
Contention is that since the Deputy Director of Education
- respondent no.7 herein enquired into the grievances of
the illegal appointments of the original appellants, a
proper enquiry was conducted. The enquiry report dated
10.10.2013 is on record. The President of the trust as
well as the original appellants were called upon to
participate in the enquiry and submit their explanation
with regard to three objections raised against their
appointments / promotions, as the case may be. There is
no dispute that pursuant to such notices, the original
WP. 10004/15 & others
- 8 -
appellants as well as the trust was heard and thereafter
respondent no.7 delivered his report dated 10.10.2013.
6] Shri Patil further submits that the report of
respondent no.7 is exhaustive, considers the contentions
of the original appellants and is a decision on the
objections raised against their appointments /
promotions. Respondent no.7 has finally concluded that
the original appellants namely Geetanjali, Dhairyashil
and Pankaj have been terminated after concluding that
their appointments were illegal. The other appellant
Deepak has been reverted as his promotion on the basis of
the Project Affected Person (PAP) certificate was held to
be unsustainable as the Deputy Collector has canceled the
PAP certificate.
7] Shri Patil submits that after these appellants
were heard by respondent no.7, there was no requirement
for a further hearing and hence the impugned order dated
18.10.2013 delivered by the Education Officer -
respondent no.8 herein thereby canceling the promotion
and the appointment orders, calls for no interference.
8] He further submits that the appellants preferred
individual appeals before the School Tribunal,
WP. 10004/15 & others
- 9 -
challenging the orders of termination / reversion dated
19.11.2013. The School Tribunal has set aside the said
orders of termination purely on the ground that after the
report dated 10.10.2013 was submitted by respondent no.7,
there was no opportunity of hearing to the appellants.
He, therefore, submits that the impugned judgments
deserve to be quashed and set aside.
9] Shri Patil relies upon the judgment of the
learned Division Bench of this Court in the matter of
Anna Manikrao Pethe v. The Presiding Officer, School
Tribunal & others (1998 (3) ALL MR 155) to contend that
the School Tribunal is obliged to frame preliminary
issues with regard to :-
a] Whether the school is recognized ?
b] Whether appointment of a teacher is as per
statutory provisions ? and
c] Whether the Education Officer has granted
approval to their appointments ?
He, therefore, submits that all these petitions deserve
to be allowed.
10] Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of original
appellants - respondent nos.1 to 4 herein, challenges the
WP. 10004/15 & others
- 10 -
locus standi of the petitioners to file these petitions.
He submits that notwithstanding whether the original
appellants are closely related to the President of the
trust or whether one appellant is the son of the chair
person of the trust, the trust could have challenged the
impugned judgments. However, it appears that the trust
may have decided not to assail the judgments of the
School Tribunal. That would not give the petitioners any
right to challenge the judgments of the School Tribunal
merely because they are trustees of the said trust.
11] He further submits that after respondent no.7
submitted his report dated 10.10.2013, the appellants
were totally oblivious and kept in the dark as regards
further action to be initiated by any competent
authority. The Education Officer does not have the
powers to set aside the appointment of any candidate or a
promotion granted. At best, the Education Officer can
refuse to accord approval or may choose to withdraw the
approval already granted, but not without hearing the
aggrieved person.
12] The learned Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 4
further submits that principles of natural justice cannot
WP. 10004/15 & others
- 11 -
be disregarded as if it is a mere formality. Principles
of natural justice would entitle the appellants to an
opportunity of hearing on the proposed adverse action
that the Education Officer may initiate subject to his
powers and/or the trust initiating any steps. There is
no dispute that prior to the issuance of the order dated
18.10.2013 as well as the orders dated 19.11.2013, none
of the appellants were heard by the Education Officer.
13] He further submits that had the Education
Officer issued an appropriate notice for hearing, the
appellants would have put forth a cause that the
Education Officer is not vested with the power to set
aside the appointment orders or withdraw or set aside the
promotions. This was rightly appreciated by the School
Tribunal and hence the impugned judgments do not call for
any interference.
14] Learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent
nos.7 and 8 submits that if the Court is of the view that
the appellants should have been heard before issuance of
the order dated 19.11.2013, there is no difficulty for
the Department / officer to cause such a hearing. He,
however, submits that since the legality of the
WP. 10004/15 & others
- 12 -
appointments of the appellants is in question, the
appellants cannot be reinstated in service. He further
submits that after hearing the appellants, respondent
no.7 or respondent no.8, as the case may be, would pass a
reasoned order and the orders of termination / reversion
dated 19.11.2013 could be subject to the decision to be
taken by following the doctrine of "relation back".
15] Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
respondent nos.5 & 6 submits that the petitioners have no
locus standi to challenge the impugned judgments. It is
for respondent nos.5 & 6 to take a decision in this
regard. Merely because the petitioners feel that the
impugned judgments deserve to be challenged, would not
entitle the petitioners to put forth any challenge since
the rules and bye-laws of the trust do not permit the
petitioners to act on behalf of the trust when the
President and the Secretary of the trust are available.
He, therefore, submits that these petitions deserve to be
dismissed on account of the petitioners having no locus
standi.
16] I have considered the submissions of the learned
Advocates for the parties.
WP. 10004/15 & others
- 13 -
17] Since I am not causing any interference in the
impugned judgments as the principles of natural justice
have not been observed by respondent no.8 while issuing
the orders dated 19.11.2013, I am not going into the
aspect of locus standi of the petitioners. Needless to
state that it would not mean that this Court has upheld
the claim of the petitioners that they can challenge the
impugned judgments as independent trustees of the trust.
18] There is no dispute that respondent no.7 has
submitted his report dated 10.10.2013. If the Education
Officer - respondent no.8 was to initiate any action
based on the said report, he was obliged to hear the
appellants. By serving a copy of the report dated
10.10.2013 to the appellants, he should have heard them
on any action that he proposed to take. The School
Tribunal has rightly concluded that an opportunity of
hearing in tune with the principles of natural justice
was not afforded to the appellants. I, therefore, do not
find that the impugned judgments could be termed as
perverse or erroneous.
19] In the light of the above, these petitions are
dismissed. Rule is discharged. Needless to state that
WP. 10004/15 & others
- 14 -
respondent nos.7 and 8 are not precluded from following
the due procedure of law in pursuance to the report dated
10.10.2013. In the event any action is proposed, the
original appellants - respondent no.1 herein, shall be
heard by following the principles of natural justice.
ig (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
ndk/c831620.doc
