Bombay High Court
Sau. Shailaja Chandrakant ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 29 March, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
wps5910.16&6208.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 5910 of 2016
AND
Writ Petition No. 6208 of 2016
A. Writ Petition No. 5910 of 2016 :
Sau. Veena Ashok Umare,
aged 57 years,
occupation - service,
resident of Plot No. 40,
Yashwant Colony,
Nagpur Road,
Wardha,
Tq. & Distt. Wardha. ..... Petitioner.
Versus
1. Education Officer [Secondary],
Zilla Parishad,
Wardha,
Tq. & Distt. Wardha.
2. Wardha Education Society,
through its Secretary,
Mahadeopura, Wardha,
a Society registered under the
provisions of Societies Act
& Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.
3. Prakash son of Chintaman Nagrale,
aged 56 years,
occ : Service,
C/o New English High School,
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2017 01:01:21 :::
wps5910.16&6208.16
2
Wardha, Tq. &Distt. Wardha.
4. Smt. Ketki Dipal Tale,
aged 52 years,
occupation - service,
C/o New English High School,
Wardha, Tq. & Distt. Wardha. .... Respondents.
*****
Mr. Prashant A. Gode, Adv., for the petitioner.
Ms. R. V. Kalia, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent no.1.
Ms. Smita Dashputra, Adv., for respondent no.3.
*****
B. Writ Petition No. 6208 of 2016 :
Sau. Shailaja Chandrakant Shrikhande
@ Shailaja V. Kadu,
aged 56 years,
occupation - service,
resident of Bachelor Road,
Murarka Layout,
Lahri Nagar, Wardha,
Distt. Wardha. ..... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Deputy Director of Education,
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2017 01:01:21 :::
wps5910.16&6208.16
3
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
3. Education Officer [Secondary],
Zilla Parishad,
Wardha,
Tq. & Distt. Wardha.
4. Wardha Education Society,
through its Secretary,
Mahadeopura, Wardha.
5. Shri Prakash son of Chintamanrao Nagrale,
resident of C/o New English High School
& Junior College, Wardha,
Distt. Wardha.
6. Sau. Ketki Sane,
resident of C/o New English High
School, Wardha,
Tq. & Distt. Wardha. .... Respondents.
*****
Mr. P. P. Thakare, Adv., for the petitioner.
Ms. R. V. Kalia, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Sanjay Ghude, Adv., for respondent no.5.
Mr. S.V. Sohoni, Adv., for respondent no.6.
*****
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI AND
A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
Date : 29th March, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT [Per B. R. Gavai, J.]:
wps5910.16&6208.16
01. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent.
02. Both the petitioners challenge the order dated 27th
September, 2016.
03. We will not go into the merits of the matter, inasmuch as we
find that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the short
ground of procedural illegality. A perusal of the record would reveal
that in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition
Nos. 172 and 174 of 2015 on 12th January, 2016, the Education Officer
was directed to decide the issue of seniority. The Education Officer
held 18th August, 1986 as the date of appointment of the writ
petitioner - Smt. Shailaja Chandrakant Shrikhande, and the Writ
Petitioner - Sau. Veena Ashok Umare, 1st December, 1983, for the
purposes of seniority.
04. However, perusal of the affidavits in the matters would
reveal that the Education Officer has reviewed his order. Perusal of
paragraph 12 thereof itself would further reveal that the Education
Officer has himself admitted that he has reviewed his order dated 17th
wps5910.16&6208.16
March, 2016.
05. It is a settled principle of law that power of review is not an
inherent power. Unless a statute specifically or by necessary
implication provides a power for review, an authority cannot invoke
such power of review. Under the Maharashtra Employees of Private
School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, or the Rules
framed thereunder, there is no power with the Education Officer to
review an order passed by him under Rule 12 of the Rules. In that
view of the matter, we find that the Education Officer had no power to
review the earlier order passed by him.
06. In the result, the Writ Petitions deserve to be allowed. The
impugned order is quashed and set aside. The earlier order passed by
the Education Officer dated 17th March, 2016 is restored. Needless to
state that all the consequences shall follow.
Judge Judge
-0-0-0-0-
|hedau|
wps5910.16&6208.16
