Sunil Bhaudeo Wakode vs Education Officer (Secondary) ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 8225 Bom

   25wp2239.20                                                                       1



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

                      WRIT PETITION NO.2239 OF 2020

  Sunil Bhaudeo Wakode,
  Age 39 years, Occ. Service,
  R/o Hiwarkhed, Tq. Talhara,
  Dist. Akola.                                              ... PETITIONER

                    Versus

  1. Education Officer (Secondary)
     Zilla Parishad, Akola, Office
     Behind Santoshi Mata Mandir Akola.

  2. Mahatma Fule Education Society,
     Hiwarkhed, Through its President/
     Secretary, R/o Hiwarkhed (Rup.),
     Tq. Talhara, Dist. Akola.                      ... RESPONDENTS


  Shri P. S. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner.
  Shri A.A.Madiwale, AGP for respondent no.1
                               .....

CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & ANIL S. KILOR, JJ

DATE : JUNE 21, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)

Hearing was conducted through video conferencing and

the learned counsel agreed that the audio and video quality was

proper.

2. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The only reason stated in the impugned order dated

12.12.2019 passed by respondent no.1 is that there being available

surplus teachers, approval to the proposed transfers of teachers

could not be granted.

4. Now, it is submitted, by way of additional reasons, that

despite surplus teachers, respondent no.1 rejected the proposal on

the ground that the Management did not clarify as to whether or

not the posts, which were proposed to be filled up by any transfer of

teachers were in the excess or that the concerned teachers had

cleared/passed the teachers' eligibility test. These grounds, being

not there in the impugned order, cannot be considered in any way

by us. At the same time, they are also of the nature as would have a

material bearing upon merits of the matter and we find that it is

necessary for respondent no.1 to revisit the whole issue, for which

purpose, it is necessary that the impugned order is quashed and set

aside.

5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned

order dated 12.12.2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter

is remanded back to the respondent no.1 for taking a decision

afresh, in accordance with law, which may be taken, as

expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from the

date of receipt of this order.

6. Rule accordingly. No costs.

                  (ANIL S. KILOR, J)                      (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J)


ambulkar