Bombay High Court
Smt. Sumati Shrikant Sattikar vs Surekha Munde, Chairman Of The Adivasi ... on 22 November, 2021
Bench: R. D. Dhanuka, Abhay Ahuja
bdp
1
13-wp-7048.21.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7048 OF 2021
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 229 OF 2021
Smt. Sumati Shrikant Sattikar ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
******
Mr. Sumit Kate h/for Dr. U. P. Warunjikar for the Petitioner in Writ
Petition and Contempt Petition.
Mrs. P. J. Gavhane, AGP for the State in Writ Petition and for the
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in Contempt Petition.
Mr. S. V. Pitre for the Respondents in Writ Petition and Contempt
Petition.
******
CORAM: R. D. DHANUKA AND
ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
DATE : 22nd NOVEMBER, 2021. P.C. :- . Pursuant to the order dated 21st October, 2021, the learned
counsel for the parties jointly state that services of the petitioner are already restored by the Management. The Commissioner of Education has already issued a show-cause notice against the concerned Deputy Director of Education for appropriate action. Learned AGP could not point out the powers of the Deputy Director of Education to cancel the approval granted to the appointment of the petitioner. The matter was remanded back to the Deputy Director of Education to decide the issue afresh in compliance with the circular dated 29th March, 2019 after giving an opportunity to the petitioner as well as the Management. The bdp 2 13-wp-7048.21.doc Deputy Director of Education however has not only refused to issue Shalarth ID but passed the impugned order on 24th September, 2021 cancelling the approval granted by the Education Officer. On the basis of order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, the Management vide letter dated 16th October, 2021 has terminated the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 20th October, 2021.
2. In our view, the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education is totally perverse and without jurisdiction and consequently the order passed by the Management on 16th October, 2021 is also illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. There were no allegations of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression against the petitioner or the management.
3. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Education is quashed and set aside and the order passed by the Management terminating the services of the petitioner vide letter dated 16 th October, 2021 is also quashed and set aside. The services of the petitioner are restored as per the approval granted by the Education Officer which was set aside by the Deputy Director of Education.
4. In our view, since the Commissioner of Education had issued a show-cause notice to the concerned Deputy Director of Education who is the only Deputy Director of Education in that District, we direct the Commissioner of Education to decide the issue which was remanded back by this Court by order dated 12 th July, 2021 after hearing the petitioner and the Management. The Commissioner of Education shall bdp 3 13-wp-7048.21.doc decide the matter in accordance with the law within four weeks from today.
5. Insofar as issue of back wages is concerned, since the Management has raised an issue that the petitioner was gainfully employed in some other school, the petitioner is not entitled to the pay of entire back wages, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to controvert the allegations by filing an rejoinder to the affidavit-in- reply. Rejoinder shall be filed within two weeks from today with a copy to be served upon the respondents' advocate simultaneously. By this limited aspect, the matter would be heard on the next date.
6. Order that would be passed by the Commissioner of Education shall be conveyed to the petitioner as well as the Management within one week from the date of passing of order. If the order is adverse against any of these parties, the aggrieved party will have liberty to file appropriate proceedings. The order that would be passed by the Commissioner of Education in that event shall not be implemented for a period of three weeks from the date of communication of such order to the aggrieved parties.
7. The petitioner as well as the authorized representative of the Management shall appear before the Commissioner of Education on 29th November, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. The learned AGP to convey this order to the learned Commissioner of Education for information and compliance.
bdp 4 13-wp-7048.21.doc
8. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 to continue the pay of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per month for the period for which the petitioner has not been paid pursuant to our last order without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties within one week from today.
9. Place the matter on board for further hearing on 10th January, 2022.
10. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
[ABHAY AHUJA, J.] [R. D. DHANUKA, J.] Digitally signed by BIPIN BIPIN DHARMENDER DHARMENDER PRITHIANI PRITHIANI Date: 2021.11.24 10:32:12 +0530