Bombay High Court
Purushottam Harishchandra ... vs Education Officer (Secondary) ... on 15 September, 2021
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
1/3 33.wp.2911.2020 aw wp.3663.2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2911 OF 2020
(Adarsha Bahuuddeshiya Mandal, Bhandara & Anr. V/s Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla
Parishad, Bhandara & Ors)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3663 OF 2020
(Purushottam Harishchandra Lanjewar V/s Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Bhandara & Ors.)
Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders
Memoranda of Coram,
Appearances, court's
orders or directions and
Prothonotary's orders
Ms. R. P. Jog h/f Mr. A. C. Dharmadhikari,
Advocate for Petitioners in Writ Petition No.
2911/2020 and for Respondent No.2 in Writ
Petition No. 3663/2020.
Mr. Amit Balpande, Advocate for Respondent
No.1 in both the Writ Petitions.
Mr. R. S. Parsodkar, Advocate for Respondent
Nos.2 & 3 in Writ Petition No. 2911/2020 and for
Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3663/2020.
Mr. S. D. Sirpurkar, AGP for Respondent No.1 in
both the Writ Petitions.
------
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 15, 2021.
. Mr. Parsodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3663/2020 submits that there is
no dispute regarding the dates of appointment of the Petitioner
and the Respondent No.2 or the dates of the acquiring the
qualification. He does not dispute the position, as stated in the
impugned order in this regard.
2/3 33.wp.2911.2020 aw wp.3663.2020.odt
2. Ms. Jog, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent
No.2 also does not dispute this position. Considering the above
admitted situation, in respect of the date of appointment and the
qualifications possessed on the date of the appointment and
subsequently acquired, the Education Officer/Respondent No.1
ought to have decided the dispute in light of what was held in
Writ Petition No. 1817 of 2018. However, the impugned order
dated 8/4/2020 no where indicates that the position as flowing
from the Judgment of this Court in Gaur Pratibha and Ors. V/s
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2019(3) ABR 481, has been
considered and applied by the Education Officer. The impugned
order in para 10 merely notes the Judgment passed in Writ
Petition No.14224/2018 by the Principal Seat, however, it does
not dilate, as to why the said Judgment is not applicable.
3. In my considered opinion, in view of the directions
as contained in para 4 of the Judgment in Writ Petition No.1817
of 2018, it was necessary for the Respondent No.1, to have
considered the dictum of this Court in Gaur Pratibha (supra) and
applied the same. Having not done so, and so also not having
expressed any reason for not doing so, the impugned order,
clearly is not sustainable as it is contrary to the directions as
contained in Writ Petition No. 1817 of 2018, for which the
impugned order therefore, is quashed and set-aside.
4. The matter is remanded back to the Respondent
3/3 33.wp.2911.2020 aw wp.3663.2020.odt
No.1, with a direction to decide the question afresh by taking
into consideration the Judgment of this Court in Gaur Pratibha
(supra). This exercise be done within a period of one month
from today.
5. The parties to appear before the Respondent No.1 on
17th September, 2021 and place a net downloaded copy of this
order before him, upon which the Respondent No.1 shall act.
6. Both the Petitions are accordingly disposed of in
above terms.
(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
Yadav VG
