Bombay High Court
Naseem Amir Hasan And 11 Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And 6 Ors on 16 August, 2017
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
ssm 1 932-wpl2058.17gp.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 2058 OF 2017
Gargi Prabhakar Rane ....Petitioner.
Vs.
The Dy. Director of Education & Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 2085 OF 2017
Preeti Amitkumar Singh ....Petitioner.
Vs.
The Dy. Director of Education & Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 2086 OF 2017
Pooja Sanjay Shah ....Petitioner.
Vs.
The Dy. Director of Education & Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 2254 OF 2017
Sujit Sahebrao Jadhav ....Petitioner.
Vs.
The Dy. Director of Education & Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 2255 OF 2017
Suvarna Dagdu Ude ....Petitioner.
Vs.
The Dy. Director of Education & Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 2248 OF 2017
1/7
::: Uploaded on - 28/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:06:56 :::
ssm 2 932-wpl2058.17gp.sxw
Namrata Arvind Singh & Anr. ....Petitioners.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 2249 OF 2017
Khan Mohammed Akbar Mohammed
Zahid & Ors. ....Petitioners.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 2250 OF 2017
Ansari Mohammed Javed Abdul Sami ....Petitioner.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 2253 OF 2017
Tahera Begum Mashihuddin ....Petitioner.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 2256 OF 2017
Mane Manisha Vijaykumar & Anr. ....Petitioners.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 2258 OF 2017
Patil Vithal Narayan & Anr. ....Petitioners.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents.
2/7
::: Uploaded on - 28/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:06:56 :::
ssm 3 932-wpl2058.17gp.sxw
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 2259 OF 2017
Naseem Amir Hasan & Ors. ....Petitioners.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 2262 OF 2017
Deepali Rajendra Sabale & Ors. ....Petitioners.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 2263 OF 2017
Rajendra Damodar Bansode ....Petitioner.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 2265 OF 2017
Shaikh Jahan Aafan & Ors. ....Petitioners.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 2266 OF 2017
Dnyaneshwar Shivaji Dhumal & Ors. ....Petitioners.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 2267 OF 2017
Renu Vidyapati Durgavati & Ors. ....Petitioners.
3/7
::: Uploaded on - 28/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:06:56 :::
ssm 4 932-wpl2058.17gp.sxw
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents.
Mr. Sunil Dighe for the Petitioners in WPL Nos. 2058, 2085, 2086,
2254, 2255 of 2017.
Mr. Hanmant Govind Wakshe for the Petitioner in WPL 2248, 2249,
2250, 2253, 2256, 2258, 2259, 2262, 2263, 2265, 2266, 2267 of
2017.
Mr. Kedar Dighe, AGP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.
DATE : 16 AUGUST 2017.
FINAL ORDER:-
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties finally.
2 The submission is made by the learned counsel appearing
for the respective parties that all these Petitions are also covered and
governed by order passed by this Bench on 14 August 2017 in Writ
Petition No.8818 of 2017 and other connected matters in every
aspects, including the facts and impugned orders and the actions and
the reliefs.
3 Therefore, we are inclined to dispose of all these Writ
Petitions by common order as agreed by all the parties on the same
line. Order dated 14 August 2017 passed by this Court in WP No.
8818 of 2017 and other companion matters, reads thus-
ssm 5 932-wpl2058.17gp.sxw
"FINAL ORDER :-
1) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally by consent of parties as the common issues
are involved and so also the action of common
respondents, we are inclined to dispose of the
present writ petitions by this common order, as
agreed by all. Learned A.G.P. waives service of notice
for the Respondent State in all the matters.
2) The petitioners are working as Assistant Teacher in
their respective Institutions since long, ranging from
6 to 12 years. They were appointed on vacant posts
after following the due procedure of law, initially as
a Shikhan Sevaks, after three years approvals were
granted, and confirmed/appointed as Assistant
Teachers. At both stages, the concerned
respondents/officers in the respective petitions have
granted approvals as required in accordance with
law. All the petitioners therefore in view of this have
been in service in the respective posts.
3) The respondents, suddenly based upon a report of
the Commissioner, (Education) Maharashtra State,
Pune initiated the proceedings/impugned action of
cancellation of approvals, already granted since
long. It is stated that the said Commissioner did
issue show cause notice, but without specifying the
changes/reasons, for intended action.
4) The respondents Authorities, who have granted the
approvals so recorded above, have recalled the order
of approval by cancelling it without following the
due procedure of law specifically, in spite of a
Division Bench Judgment of this Court (Coram:
B.R.Gavai & Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ) in Writ Petition No
10133 of 2016 (Shivanee Deshpande Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others) and other connected
ssm 6 932-wpl2058.17gp.sxw
matters, whereby it is specifically held after
considering the similar situation, as under:-
"By now, it is settled principle of law that
unless the power of review is specifically or by
necessary implication provided, the authority
cannot review its own order. No doubt, if an
order is obtained by exercising fraud, it would
stand vitiated. However, it is not the case of
the respondent-Education Officer that the
petitioners have obtained their initially orders
by fraudulent means. It is further observed in
the said order as under if the earlier
Education Officer had granted approval to
the petitioners' appointment, may be
erroneously, the same cannot be made a
ground to recall the same and pass contrary
order, unless a case of fraud,
misrepresentation or suppression is made out.
Particularly, when most of the petitioners
have already put in their services for 11
years, the impugned orders would amount to
penalising them for no fault on their part".
5) In view of the above, there is a force in the
contention so raised by the learned Counsel
appearing for the petitioners. The learned AGP
therefore on instructions, conceded to the position of
law and makes statement that the concerned
respondents/officers/authorities shall recall the
impugned order/action and related proceeding, if
any dated 27th June, 2017 or such other dates as
early as possible, preferably within two weeks; and
they will also recall/withdraw their impugned
action and/or orders of cancellation of approval in
question. Further, they will grant/continue to
provide all service benefits / entitlement to the
petitioners or such teachers.
ssm 7 932-wpl2058.17gp.sxw
6) In the interest of justice and to avoid further delay
and complication, we are inclined to accept the
statement made the learned AGP on behalf of the
respondents-authorities. In view of this, we are
inclined to dispose of these petitions by keeping all
contentions open of both sides.
7) It is made clear that in view of withdrawal of the
impugned action so referred to above, all the
petitioners/teachers are entitled for all the requisite
benefits as they are otherwise entitled in law. The
concerned respondents, within a period of three
weeks, will take effective steps to avoid further delay.
It is made clear that once the impugned action /
order is withdrawn as recorded above of the
consequential benefits including their salaries need
to be immediately released, if withhold for such
reasons.
8) All the writ petitions are allowed accordingly. No
costs.
9) The parties to act on the basis of an authenticated
copy of this order."
4 In view of above, all these Writ Petitions are allowed for
the same reasons. All the Petitions are allowed accordingly in terms of
paragraph Nos. 5 to 9 of order dated 14 August 2017 passed in Writ
Petition No. 8818 of 2017. There shall be no order as to costs.
(BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
