Bombay High Court
Nilkanth Vyayam Mandal, Through Vice ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 28 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 BOM 311
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Vinay Joshi
Judgment wp3215.18
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 3215/2018.
Nilkanth Vyayam Mandal,
through its Vice President,
namely Dipak Tulshiram Gulhane,
Aged 52 years, resident of
Nilkanth Chowk, Budhwara,
Amravati, Tq. and District Amravati. ... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary for
Education and Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati
/Chairman of Backward Class
Cell, Amravati Division,
Amravati, Tq. and District Amravati. ... RESPONDENTS.
---------------------------------
Mr. S.M. Vaishnav, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. S. Haidar, A.G.P. for Respondents.
----------------------------------
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR
& VINAY JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : FEBRUARY 28, 2020.
::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/02/2020 11:32:24 :::
Judgment wp3215.18
2
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.) :
Rule. Heard finally considering the short issue involved.
2. The petitioner - Management is running two Secondary Schools which are duly recognized. There is one post of headmaster in each school. On 27.12.2016, the Management submitted its proposal seeking grant of approval to the roaster points in both these schools. The Divisional Commissioner on 25.05.2017, granted the roaster. In so far as the post of headmaster is concerned, both the posts were shown as being kept for candidate from open category. The Divisional Commissioner thereafter on the basis of a complaint dated 03.05.2018, proceeded to cancel the roaster which was sanctioned by order dated 10.05.2018. This order is under challenge principally on the ground that the same was passed without granting any opportunity of hearing to the management. It is also the case of the management that by referring to a subsequent government resolution dated 26.09.2017, the sanction granted earlier to the roaster has been cancelled.
::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/02/2020 11:32:24 :::
Judgment wp3215.18 3
3. In the Writ Petition a specific ground has been raised by the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed without granting any opportunity of hearing to the management. That assertion has not been specifically denied in the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2. It is to be noted that the proposal of the management dated 27.12.2016 was accepted on 25.05.2017. If that order was to be modified, it was necessary for respondent no.2 to have heard the management and then pass a fresh order. It appears that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of a complaint dated 03.05.2018, without hearing the management. Hence, on this short ground the order dated 10.05.2018, is set aside. If respondent no.2 is of the view that the approval to the roaster point granted on 25.05.2017, deserves to be reconsidered, the same shall be done after giving due opportunity to the petitioner.
4. Keeping all other contentions on merit open, the Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/02/2020 11:32:24 :::