Bombay High Court
Ku. Ranjana Namdeorao Bhange vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 8 December, 2017
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp2440.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2440/2016
Ku. Ranjana Namdeorao Bhange,
(Now, Sau. Rajani Anil Deogade),
aged about 50 Yrs., Occu. Head Mistress,
Sai Baba Vidyalaya, Makardhokada,
Katol Road, Nagpur. ..Petitioner.
..Vs..
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
3. Bahu Uddeshiya Trirup Shikshan Sanstha,
through its Secretary, Makardhokda,
Nagpur.
4. Zashiram Domaji Thaware,
R/o 10, Jagruti, Dr. Khankhoje Nagar,
Manewada Cement Road,
Nagpur 440 024. ..Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri N.R. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shri A. Shelat, Advocate for respondent No.4.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 8.12.2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri N.R.
2 wp2440.16
Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Shri A. Shelat, Advocate for
respondent No.4. None for respondent No.3 though served.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. There is a dispute about inter se seniority of the petitioner viz-a-viz
respondent No.4. After hearing all the parties, the Education Officer took a
decision on 31st March, 2015 concluding that the date of appointment of the
petitioner is 24th June, 1994 and date of appointment of respondent No.4 is 1 st
August, 1994 and held that the petitioner is senior to respondent No.4. This
decision is challenged by respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.3369/2015 in
which today "Rule" is issued.
4. Surprisingly, though a reasoned order is passed by the Education
Officer on 31st March, 2015 and it was subjudiced before this Court in Writ
petition No.3369/2015, the Education Officer has issued the impugned order
refusing to accept the change in the date of appointment of the petitioner and
cancelling the earlier order passed by him on 31 st March, 2015 by which he
determined the inter se seniority of petitioner viz-a-viz respondent No.4. It is
undisputed that this order dated 14th January, 2016 is issued without giving
any notice to the parties and without hearing them.
3 wp2440.16
5. In view of the above, the impugned order is unsustainable and is
required to be quashed.
The petition is allowed accordingly.
In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
It is clarified that the order issued on 14th January, 2016 is quashed
as it is issued during the pendency of Writ Petition No.3369/2015 in which the
legality of the order dated 31st March, 2015 is being examined and further
because the order dated 14th January, 2016 is issued without giving notice to
and without hearing the parties. I have not examined the merits of the matter
and the contentions raised by the parties are kept open for consideration in
Writ Petition No.3369/2015.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
