Dipika Rajesh Pawar vs Asmita Samajik Sanskrutik ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8924 Bom

2023:BHC-OS:9138-DB




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                  REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 923 OF 2021
                                                 IN
                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 736 OF 2019

            Trupti Nilesh Gurav                                 ...           Petitioner
            V/s.
            Asmita Samjik Sanskrutik Sanstha ...                               Respondents
            through its Secretary and Ors.
                                                WITH
                                 REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 1235 OF 2021
                                                 IN
                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 738 OF 2019

            Dipika Rajesh Pawar                                 ...           Petitioner
            V/s.
            Asmita Samjik Sanskrutik Sanstha ...                               Respondents
            and Ors.
                                                 -------------------

Mr. Prashant Bhavke I.by Mr. Vedchetan Patil for the petitioner. None for the respondents.

---------------------

                                                   CORAM         :      SUNIL B. SHUKRE &
                                                                        M.S. KARNIK, J.J.
                                                                        (IN CHAMBER)

                                                      DATE       :      30th AUGUST 2023.

            PC:

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The contention is that approval once granted cannot be

1.RPWL-923-2021 IN WP-736-2019.doc varsha 1 of 3 revoked even by the Deputy Director as there is no power conferred

upon the Deputy Director to sit in appeal or in review over the order

passed by the Education Inspector. Further contention is that the

review of the order passed by the Education Inspector is permissible on

the part of Deputy Director, Education only in cases where there is an

instance of obtaining of the order of approval by playing fraud or by

suppressing material facts or by misrepresenting the Education

Inspector. It is also submitted that none of these grounds was available

in the present case and yet the approval granted by the Education

Inspector to the appointment of both petitioners as non-teaching

school employees has been revoked by the Deputy Director, Education

in violation of the well settled principles of law. Reliance is also placed

upon the view taken in several cases by different Co-ordinate benches

of this Court to the effect that except in the aforesaid cases, there is no

power of review conferred upon the Deputy Director, Education so as

to upset the order of approval passed by the Education Inspector.

3. Insofar as concerned settled principles of law, there is no

second opinion about the same. Deputy Director, Education has no

power to review the order of approval passed by the Education

Inspector unless a case is made out showing playing of fraud or

1.RPWL-923-2021 IN WP-736-2019.doc varsha 2 of 3 suppression of material facts or misrepresentation of material facts by

the employee while obtaining the order of approval. However, in the

present case the consideration which weighed with this Court in

rejecting both the Writ Petitions is entirely different. This Court has

found that the record would show that the process of recruitment

adopted by the management was faulty and non-compliant with law

and that was the reason why this Court rejected the petitions.

4. This was a ground which was based upon consideration of

fairness and equity as applicable to the facts of the petitions. That

being so, we do not think that this Court, in exercise of its review

power, can take a different view just because it is possible, as if this

Court is sitting in appeal over the judgment delivered by this Court on

the earlier occasion. This is not permissible in law. There is no error

apparent on the face of the order sought to be reviewed.

5. The petition, therefore, stands dismissed.

                        (M.S. KARNIK, J)                                   (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J)




                       1.RPWL-923-2021 IN WP-736-2019.doc
Signed by: Varsha D Gaikwad
                       varsha                                                              3 of 3
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 31/08/2023 10:58:59