Bombay High Court
Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Va ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary ... on 25 April, 2016
Author: Vasanti A. Naik
Bench: Vasanti A. Naik, V.M. Deshpande
wp177.16.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.177/2016
PETITIONERS: 1. Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
Va Karmachari Vyavsaik Sanstha,
Wardha, through its Secretary,
Sau. Vibha N. Date.
2. Krushak Vidyalaya & Junior College,
Wardha, Tah. and District - Wardha,
ig through its Headmaster.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary of School & Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
3. Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Wardha, Tah. and District - Wardha.
4. Panjabrao Jagannath Shende,
R/o C/o Shri Govindrao Bakde,
Sneh Nagar Mahila Ashram, Sewagram
Road, Wardha, Tah. and District - Wardha.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.S. Malokar, Advocate for petitioners
Shri P.S. Tembhare, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3
Shri P.S. Tiwari, Advocate for respondent no.4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 25.04.2016
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:44:21 :::
wp177.16.odt
2
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
By this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the order of the Education Officer - respondent no.3 revoking the order of cancelling the approval to the appointment of the respondent no.4.
The respondent no.4 was appointed by the erstwhile Management on 27.7.1999 as an Assistant Teacher. The services of the respondent no.1 were orally terminated by the erstwhile Management and the respondent no.4 challenged the termination in an appeal before the School Tribunal. The appeal filed by the respondent no.4 was dismissed by the School Tribunal. The respondent no.4 filed a writ petition challenging the order of the dismissal of the appeal. This Court, partly allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the School Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits. After remand, the School Tribunal again dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent no.4 after holding that the appointment of the respondent no.4 in the school run by the petitioner no.2 was not proper. The respondent no.4 had challenged the said order in a writ petition before the learned Single Judge. It is necessary to state at this juncture that the respondent - Education Officer ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:44:21 ::: wp177.16.odt 3 had granted approval to the appointment of the respondent no.4 on 18.12.2001. The approval granted to the appointment of the respondent no.4 was however cancelled by an order dated 13.11.2006. After the appeal filed by the respondent no.4 was dismissed by the School Tribunal in the second round of litigation, the respondent - Education Officer has revoked the order cancelling the approval that is dated 13.11.2006 and restored the approval to the appointment of the respondent no.4. The order, dated 3.12.2015 revoking the order of cancellation of approval is challenged by the petitioners in the instant petition.
It is stated on behalf of the petitioners that the Education Officer could not have revoked the order cancelling the approval, dated 13.11.2006 when the appeal filed by the respondent no.4 against the order of termination was dismissed by the School Tribunal and the writ petition filed by the respondent no.4 against the order of dismissal was pending. It is stated that after the School Tribunal had upheld the order of termination of the respondent no.4 by dismissing the appeal filed by him, the Education Officer could not have restored the approval granted to the appointment of the respondent no.4.
Shri Tembhare, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Education Officer submitted that after the School Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent no.4, ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:44:21 ::: wp177.16.odt 4 normally, the Education Officer should not have revoked the order of cancellation of the approval to the appointment of the respondent no.4. It is submitted that in the circumstances of the case, the Education Officer must have thought that the order of approval was wrongly cancelled and hence, the approval must have been restored.
Shri Tiwari, the learned Counsel for the respondent no.4 submitted that the services of the respondent no.4 were terminated without following the due procedure prescribed by law. It is submitted that no opportunity whatsoever was granted to the respondent no.4 before termination of his services. It is submitted that the termination of services of the respondent no.4 and the revocation of his approval are two separate issues. It is submitted that merely because the appeal filed by the respondent no.4 was dismissed, it cannot be said that the Education Officer could not have revoked the order cancelling the approval to the appointment of the respondent no.4.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that the action on the part of the Education Officer in revoking the order of cancellation of approval to the appointment of the respondent no.4 after the appeal filed by the respondent no.4 was dismissed by the School Tribunal by holding that the appointment of the respondent no.4 was not made in accordance with law, is clearly illegal. The services of the ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:44:21 ::: wp177.16.odt 5 respondent no.4 were allegedly terminated by the erstwhile Management and the respondent no.4 had challenged the order of termination before the School Tribunal after the order granting approval to the appointment of the respondent no.4 was cancelled. The School Tribunal framed the preliminary issues and found that the appointment of the respondent no.4 was illegal and not made in accordance with law. After the School Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent no.4 and the writ petition filed by the respondent no.4 was pending before the learned Single Judge, there was no propriety in the action of the Education Officer of revoking the order cancelling the approval to the appointment of the respondent no.4. After the appeal filed by the respondent no.4 was dismissed by the School Tribunal, the Education Officer had no business to consider revoking the order cancelling the approval, and that too, after a period of nearly ten years. The matter was pending before the learned Single Judge and appropriate orders could have been passed by the Education Officer, if the writ petition filed by the respondent no.4 against the order of the School Tribunal was allowed and if it was held that the termination was bad in law and the respondent no.4 was entitled to reinstatement in service. However, after the School Tribunal held that the appointment of the respondent no.4 was not proper and the writ petition filed by the respondent no.4 was pending, the Education Officer probably ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:44:21 ::: wp177.16.odt 6 on the threat of the respondent no.4 that he would go on hunger strike illegally revoked the order, dated 13.11.2006, thereby reviving the approval to the appointment of the respondent no.4. The action of the Education Officer is clearly illegal and cannot be sustained.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:44:21 :::