Bombay High Court
Nilofar W/O Sarfaraz Attar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 11 December, 2023
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
2023:BHC-AS:37604-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3887 OF 2021
Nilofar Sarfaraz Attar, ]
Age : 33 years, Occ.: Service, ]
R/o. Flat No.10, A-Wing, Pride Apartment, ]
Mujawar Wada, Baramati, Dist. Pune ] .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, ]
Through it's Secretary, ]
School Education & Sports Department, ]
Mantralaya, Extension Building, Mumbai-32. ]
2. The President, ]
Grievance Committee & the Divisional President ]
of Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher ]
Secondary Education, Divisional Board, Pune. ]
3. The Deputy Director of Education, ]
Pune Region, Pune. ]
4. The Administrative Officer, ]
Education Department, ]
Municipal Council, Baramati, Dist. Pune. ]
5. Shaikh Shahed Salim Abdul Majeed, ]
Age : ___ years, Occ.: Assistant Teacher, ]
Urdu Municipal School No.4, ]
Municipal Council, Baramati, Dist. Pune. ] .. Respondents
Mr. Hanif Shaikh, with Mr. Onkar A. Wable, for the Petitioner.
Ms. A.A. Purav, AGP for the Respondent-State.
Ms. Neeta Dhonsekar, with Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, for Respondent No.4.
Mr. Rahul Kadam, with Mr. Aditya Aklekar, for Respondent No.5.
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ
DATE : 11TH DECEMBER, 2023.
1/3
20-WP-3887-2021.doc
Dixit
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 29/02/2024 17:37:36 :::
ORAL JUDGMENT : { Per A.S. Chandurkar, J. }
1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned counsel for the
parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed pursuant to the hearing
that was conducted on 1st March 2021 by the 2nd respondent. By that order, it
has been held that respondent no.5 is senior in service than the petitioner. Inter
alia, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was
not heard prior to adjudication of the issue of seniority. In that regard, he
invites attention to the impugned order, wherein the presence of the parties,
who had attended the proceedings, has been recorded. The petitioner's name
does not figure in the said list. Averments in this regard have been made in
paragraph 13 of the Writ Petition and there is no denial of the same.
3. We find from material on record that the hearing of the proceedings was
conducted on 1st March 2021, for which there was no notice to the petitioner.
Reference in the impugned order is to an application dated 9 th April 2021,
stated to be submitted by the petitioner after conclusion of the hearing.
Considering the fact that the issue that requires adjudication is with regard to
inter se seniority between the petitioner and respondent no.5, the interest of
justice would be served by directing the 2 nd respondent to hear the petitioner
and respondent no.5 afresh and thereafter decide the complaint made by
respondent no.5 on the aspect of seniority. To enable consideration of this issue,
the petitioner, respondent no.5 and all concerned shall attend the office of the
20-WP-3887-2021.doc
Dixit
2nd respondent on 20th December 2023 at 11:00 a.m. The 2nd respondent shall
hear all concerned parties and thereafter decide the issue of seniority within a
period of six weeks from that date. The decision taken shall be communicated to
the parties. To enable such exercise to be undertaken, the impugned order dated
1st March 2021, in the form of Minutes of the meeting and the covering letter
dated 27th May 2021, is set aside.
4. It is clarified that any party aggrieved by such adjudication is free to seek
legal redress against the same. It is further clarified that this Court has not
examined the merits of the rival contentions. Keeping all points raised open, the
Writ Petition is disposed of with aforesaid directions. Rule accordingly.
[ FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]
20-WP-3887-2021.doc
Dixit
