Bombay High Court
Ku. Sangeeta D/O. Janrao Wakekar vs The State Govt., Thr. Principal ... on 5 October, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 762/16 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 762/2016
Ku.Sangeeta D/o Janrao Wakekar,
Age about 38 years, Occupation: Service,
Res.of : C/o Vivek Gondchar Bahvan,
Nanda Market, Rajapeth, Amravati. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. The State Govt.,
through its Principal Secretary,
Education Dept,
Maharashtra State, 108, First Floor,
Mantralaya Extension, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The State Govt.,
through its Principal Secretary,
Social Welfare Department,
316, 3rd Floor, Mantralaya Extension,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400032.
3. Rashtriya/Maharashtra Project Abhiyan,
through its Director-Cum-Coordinator,
Jawahar Bal Bhavan, 1st Floor,
Netaji Subhash Marg, Charni Rd (West),
Mumbai - 400004.
4. Directorate of Education,
Maharashtra State through the
Director (Education), Primary Education
(Integrated Disabled education Scheme
Section), Dr.Annie Besant Marg,
Pune - 411001.
5. Dy. Director, Education Dept.,
Maharashtra State, Amravati.
6. Education Officer (Secondary Education),
Zilla Parishad, Amravati.
7. Nootan Vidarbha Shikshan Mandal,
a registered Society, through its President,
Jog Chowk, Amravati.
8. New Highschool,
through its Head Master,
at Belpura, Amravati.
9. Union of India,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Government of India, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi. RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2016 00:46:16 :::
WP 762/16 2 Judgment
Shri Rajeev Deshpande, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri V.P. Maldhure, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1, 2, 4 to 6.
None for the respondent no.3.
Shri Anand Parchure, counsel for the R-7 and 8.
Mrs. M.R. Chandurkar, counsel for the respondent no.9.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
: 5 TH
DATE
OCTOBER, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel
for the parties.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the
Director of Education, dated 29.12.2015, terminating the services of the
petitioner as a Special Teacher for the students with hearing impairment,
inter alia, on the ground that the director of Education had not served a
show cause notice on the management as also the petitioner before
cancelling the unit run by the respondent nos.7 and 8 for imparting
education to the disabled children and terminating the services of the
petitioner. The petitioner has also sought a direction against the
respondents to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner from July-2012,
till date.
3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had complied with
all the requirements of the scheme and her services could not have been
WP 762/16 3 Judgment
terminated, much less, without serving a show cause notice on her before
terminating her services. It is stated that though the impugned order,
dated 29.12.2015 cancelling the recognition of the unit run by the
respondent nos.7 and 8 and the termination of the services of the
petitioner was served on the petitioner and the respondent nos.7 and 8,
the show cause notice that was issued against the petitioner and the
respondent nos.7 and 8 on 17.10.2015, was not served either on the
petitioner or on the respondent nos.7 and 8. It is submitted that it was
necessary, as per the directions of the State Government, vide circular
dated 07.07.2015 to serve a show cause notice before cancellation of the
recognition of the unit and termination of services. It is submitted that
since a show cause notice was not served on the petitioner and the
respondent nos.7 and 8, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is
stated that in the circumstances of the case, a direction may be issued
against the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner from June-
2012, till date.
4. Shri Maldhure, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, submitted on
instructions from the Director of Education that a show cause notice,
dated 17.10.2015 was dispatched to the petitioner and the respondent
nos.7 and 8 and this fact could be demonstrated from the outward
register maintained in the Office of the Director of Education. It is stated
WP 762/16 4 Judgment
that the services of the petitioner were terminated as several deficiencies
were found in the unit of the respondent nos.7 and 8 and it was necessary
to cancel the permission granted to the respondent nos.7 and 8 to run the
unit. It is, however, fairly submitted that there is no material, much less,
documentary, to show that the show cause notice, dated 17.10.2015 was
actually served on the petitioner and the respondent nos.7 and 8. It is
submitted that a direction may not be issued against the respondents to
pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner as the petitioner has filed Writ
Petition No.4682 of 2015 seeking a direction against the respondents to
release the salary. It is stated that the two petitions cannot be filed for
seeking the same relief.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that
though a direction was issued by the State Government to the Director of
Education, vide circular dated 07.07.2015, to consider withdrawing the
recognition to the units and terminate the services of the employees in the
unit after serving a show cause notice on them, in the instant case, no
show cause notice was actually served either on the petitioner or on the
respondent nos.7 and 8. If the State Government had directed the
Director of Education to take appropriate action in respect of the
cancellation of the units and the termination of the services of the special
teachers after serving a show cause notice on the units and the teachers,
it was incumbent on the part of the Director to ensure that a show cause
WP 762/16 5 Judgment
notice was actually served on the petitioner and the respondent nos.7 and
8 before cancelling the permission granted to the respondent nos.7 and 8
to run the unit. We find, on a perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed on
behalf of the Deputy Director of Education that the show cause notice was
issued by the Director of Education on 17.10.2015 but, the same was not
actually served on the petitioner and the respondent nos.7 and 8. If that
be so, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6.
Though the impugned order is liable to be set aside, in the
circumstances of the case, it would not be possible for this Court to direct
the respondents to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner from June-
2012. It is rightly submitted on behalf of the State Government and the
Director of Education that the petitioner cannot file two writ petitions for
seeking the arrears of salary from June-2012. The petitioner should
either prosecute Writ Petition No.4682 of 2015 or should prosecute this
petition in respect of the prayer for grant of arrears of salary and
withdraw Writ Petition No.4682 of 2015. Since the learned counsel for
the petitioner has states that he would not press the prayer for a direction
against the respondents for payment of the arrears of salary from June-
2012 in this writ petition and would prosecute Writ Petition No.4682 of
2015 for seeking the aforesaid relief, by accepting the statement made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner, we permit the petitioner to seek the
relief in Writ Petition No.4682 of 2015.
WP 762/16 6 Judgment
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly
allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Director of
Education is free to take appropriate action against the petitioner and the
respondent nos.7 and 8, in accordance with law.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
WP 762/16 7 Judgment
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct
copy of original signed Judgment.
Uploaded by: Rohit D. Apte. Uploaded on :07.10.2016.
