Tukaram Bharat Dudile And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 5703 Bom

                                                                             919.odt
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                       WRIT PETITION NO. 11233 OF 2015




                                                                      
    1.        Tukaram  s/o Bharat Dudile
              Age 31 years, Occu: Service 




                                              
              as Assistant Teacher, Shri 
              Ganesh Vidyalaya, Shivankhed, 
              Tal. Chakur, Dist. Latur




                                             
    2.        Ramrao s/o Sheshrao Gitte,     ... Petitioners
              Age 33 yeas, Occupation: 
              Service as Assistant Teacher, 
              Shri Ganesh Vidyalaya, 




                                       
              Shivankhed, Tal. Chakur, 
              Dist. Latur

              VERSUS
                                  
    1.        The State of Maharashtra,
                                 
              Through its Secretary,
              School Education and Sports 
              Department, Mantralaya, 
              Mumbai 400 032
      


    2.        The Education Officer 
   



              (Secondary)
              Zilla Parishad, Latur

    3.        Shivankhed Shikshan Prasarak 





              Mandal, Shivankhed, Tal. 
              Chakur, District: Latur, 
              Through its Secretary shri 
              Shivaji s/o Narhari Nagargoje





    4         Shri Ganesh Vidyalaya, 
              Shivankhed, Taluka Chakur, 
              Dist. Latur
              through its Headmaster Shri 
              Narsing s/o Dnyanoba Bawache

    5.        Venkatesh Kishanrao Kasale     ...  Respondents.
              Age 75 years, Occu: 
              Pensioner, R/o Shivankhed Tq. 
              Chakur, Dist. latur


                                                                                   1/5
         ::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2016         ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2016 00:26:55 :::
                                                                                      919.odt
          Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S. S. Thombre
       AGP for Respondents State: Mr. M. B. Bharaswadkar 
    Advocate for Respondents State : Mr. M. B. Bharaswadkar
      Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : Mr.M. S. Karad 




                                                                              
    Advocate for Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Santosh S. Jadhavar




                                                      
                                        CORAM   :  S. V. GANGAPURWALA & 
                                                    K. L. WADANE, JJ.
                                         DATE   :   29th September, 2016




                                                     
    JUDGMENT (Per Gangapurwala, J.):

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With

consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final

disposal

3. Mr. Thombre, the learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed

as Shikshan Sevak. Their appointment as Shikshan Sevak

was also approved by the Education Officer.

Subsequently, without notice to the petitioners and

without hearing the petitioners, the order granting

approval to the appointment of the petitioners is set

aside. The learned counsel submits that on completion

of three years, the petitioners acquired the status of

permanent Assistant Teacher. No illegality was

committed at the time of appointment of the

petitioners. Due selection process was followed.

919.odt

4. Mr.Jadhavar, the learned counsel submits that

the persons who appointed the petitioners were not

authorized to appoint. There was illegality in the

appointment of the petitioners. Complaint was made by

respondent no.5 and after considering the entire

record, impugned order has been rightly passed.

5. The learned AGP states that there is dispute

amongst the members of the Managing Committee.

Appointment was also not as per the roster and as such,

the impugned order is passed.

6. We have considered the submissions.

7. When a proposal is sent seeking approval to the

appointment of a person by the Institution, naturally,

the Education Officer has to consider the record and

pass orders for approval. It is not necessary to hear

the parties at that time. However, if after

considering the said record approval is granted and

subsequently, after grant of approval, if certain

action is contemplated to be taken with regard to the

approval granted, then in such circumstances, before

passing any adverse order, it is necessary to hear the

person in whose favour earlier, the order was passed.

919.odt

8. In the present case, the approval was granted to

the appointment of the petitioners and subsequently,

vide the impugned order it is cancelld, even without

notice to the petitioners. The said order does not

withstand the test of the principals of natural

justice.

9. In light of above, the impugned order is quashed

and set aside.

10.

The petitioner may appear before the Education

Officer on 17th October, 2016. The Education Officer

shall, after issuing notice to all interested parties,

take decision afresh with regard to the approval.

11. The petitioners and all others persons are

entitled to place on record the documents which they

would chose to rely. The Education Officer shall

consider all the said documents and pass afresh orders

on its own merits, in accordance with law, after

considering the stands taken by all the parties.

12. It is submitted that the petitioners are

discharging their duties. Even this Court had granted

interim orders, however, salary is not paid to the

petitioners. The concerned Headmaster shall submit the

919.odt salary bills of the petitioners till date to the

Education Office. The Education Officer shall process

the same and shall not refuse to sanction the said

salary bills only on the ground that question of

approval is subjudice before him.

13. The concerned Headmaster shall submit the salary

bills within a period of three weeks from today and

upon receipt of the same, the Education Officer shall

process it within a period of four weeks from the

receipt of the salary bills.

14. The Education Officer shall decide the

proceeding before him with regard to the approval

expeditiously, preferably within a period of four

months from the date of appearance of the parties.

15. Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall

be no order as to costs.

(K. L. WADANE, J.) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ) JPC