Mr. Tausif S/O. Layak Ali Sheikh, ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3294 Bom

wp.991.16.jud                           1


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                      WRIT PETITION NO.991 OF 2016

Mr. Tausif s/o Layak Ali Sheikh,
Age 27 years, Occupation : Service,
R/o Post Alapalli, Tahsil Aheri,
District Gadchiroli.                                                .... Petitioner

       -- Versus -
01]    State of Maharashtra,
       Through its Secretary,
       Department of Education,
       Mantralaya, Mumbai : 32

02]    Commissioner,
       Tribal Development,
       Maharashtra State, Nashik.

03]    Additional Commissioner,
       Tribal Development,
       Maharashtra State,
       Nagpur.

04]    Bhagwantrao Memorial Education Society,
       Through its Secretary,
       Having its Office at Aheri, Gadchiroli.

05]    Bhagwantrao Primary Ashram School,
       Through its Head Master,
       At Village Gomni, Tahsil Mulchera,
       District Gadchiroli.
       District Amravati.                                      .... Respondents


Shri R.R. Vyas, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. A.R. Taiwade, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

                CORAM           : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
                DATE            : JUNE 16, 2017.




 ::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017                   ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:14:55 :::
 wp.991.16.jud                           2


ORAL JUDGMENT :-


                Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.



02]             Challenge in the petition is to the order dated

30/11/2015          passed      by   Commissioner,   Tribal      Development,

Maharashtra State, Nashik and order dated 26/11/2013 passed

by Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Nagpur.



03]             The facts giving rise to the petition may be stated in

brief as under :


            i. On 18/07/2009, an advertisement for ten posts of

                Primary Shikshan Sevak was published by respondent

                no.4. Out of ten posts, six posts were filled in from

                open category. Petitioner applied for said post from

                open category. He was called for interview and was

                appointed as Shikshan Sevak. He joined his duties on

                27/01/2010 for a period of three years.


            ii. The proposal for approval to the name of petitioner

                was       submitted.   The   same    was      refused.         Being



 ::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:14:55 :::
 wp.991.16.jud                      3


                aggrieved with refusal to the approval of the name of

                petitioner, appeal was preferred.        Appeal also met

                with the same fate. Hence, the present petition.


04]             Shri R.R. Vyas, learned Counsel for petitioner submits

that while passing the impugned orders, opportunity of hearing

was not given to petitioner. Respondent nos.4 and 5 filed their

affidavit-in-reply and supported the case of petitioner to large

extent.


05]             From the impugned orders, it can be seen that copies

of orders were endorsed to petitioner but there is no whisper in

the orders that petitioner was heard. As the order was adverse

to the interest of petitioner, an opportunity of hearing ought to

have been given to the affected person like petitioner. The same

has been denied and, therefore, impugned orders suffer from

violation of the principles of natural justice. Interference is thus

warranted in the extraordinary jurisdiction. Petition deserves to

be allowed. Hence, the following order :


                                ORDER

i. Writ Petition No.991/2016 is allowed.

ii. Impugned orders dated 30/11/2015 passed by

Commissioner, Tribal Development, Maharashtra

State, Nashik and dated 26/11/2013 passed by

Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Nagpur

are set aside.

iii. Respondent no.3 is directed to take a decision afresh

on the approval of petitioner in accordance with the

law preferably within three months after giving an

opportunity of hearing.

iv. Petitioner, respondent no.4 and respondent no.5 to

appear before respondent no.3 on 3rd of July, 2017.

v. Rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as

to costs.

*sdw                                                 (Kum. Indira Jain, J)