Remanded

Satish Jankiram Dharrao v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Sept 2004WP/6111/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay quashed an order cancelling the petitioner's appointment on grounds of reservation backlog, directing remand for a fresh hearing after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and the college.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned order dated 13.08.2003; remanded matter to Deputy Director of Education for fresh consideration after hearing; decision within 8 weeks.

Satish Jankiram Dharrao Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2004)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.6111 OF 2004

¶5

 Shri Satish Jankiram Dharrao .. Petitioner

¶6

 Versus

¶7

 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

 Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar for the petitioner

¶9

 Mr.R.D.Rane, Addl.G.P. for respondent no.1 and 2

¶10

 CORAM: A.P.SHAH &
 S.U.KAMDAR, JJ

¶11

 DATED: 1ST SEPTEMBER, 2004

¶12

 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.U.KAMDAR, J.):

¶13

 1. The petitioner in the present petition is

¶14

 challenging the order dated 13th August, 2003
 passed by the 2nd respondent. Thereby the approval
 granted to the petitioner to the post of Shikshan
 Sevak was cancelled on the ground that there has
 been a backlog of reservation in the institution
 which the management has failed to filled in. Some
 of the facts of the present case are as under:

¶15

¶16

 2. The petitioner is M.Sc. B.Ed. and duly
 qualified to be appointed as Assistant Teacher.
 The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher
 on 8th June 1998 on part time basis. On 15th June
 1999, the petitioner was appointed as a full time
 Assistant Teacher on a probation for a period of 2
 years. On 1st July 2000, the approval was granted
 by the 2nd respondent to the appointment of the
 petitioner. However, it was made clear that the
 said appointment is subject to clearance of backlog
 of reservation. On 14th December 2001, a permanent
 approval was granted to the petitioner as an
 Assistant Teacher in the respondent no.4 College.
 However, for the year 2002-2003 onwards the
 proposal of the petitioner was kept pending and
 ultimately by an impugned order dated 13th August
 2003 the approval has been finally cancelled on the
 ground of backlog in reserved category.

¶17

 3. There is no serious dispute before us that
 there has been a backlog in the reserved category
 for the purpose of appointment in the post of

¶18

¶19

 Shikshan Sevak in 4th respondent college. However,
 the number of vacancies available and the number of
 vacancy falling under the reserved category is
 required to be determined.

¶20

 4. The impugned order is passed by the respondent
 no.2 without giving any opportunity of hearing
 either to the petitioner or respondent no.4
 College. In view thereof we are of the opinion
 that the matter is required to be remanded back to
 the authorities for a fresh consideration after
 giving an opportunity of personal hearing to both
 the petitioner and the respondent no.4 college.

¶21

 5. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order
 dated 13th August, 2003 and remand the matter back
 for reconsideration to the Deputy Director of
 Education, Nashik Region, Nashik to decide the
 matter afresh after giving an opportunity of
 hearing to the petitioner and 4th respondent
 College. The Deputy Director shall pass a speaking
 order after hearing both the parties. The Deputy
 Director shall decide the matter within a period of

¶22

¶23

 8 weeks from today. In an event if there is an
 adverse order passed against the petitioner then
 the same shall not be implemented for a period of 2
 weeks from the date of communication of the said
 order to the petitioner herein.

¶24

 6. With the aforesaid direction, we dispose of the
 present petition. Petition is disposed of
 accordingly. However, there shall be no order as
 to cost.

¶25

 Parties to act on a copy of this order duly
 authenticated by the Court Stenographer.

Satish Jankiram Dharrao v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Jankiram Dharrao v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.a.B.Agro Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shivaji Tukaram Patil Vs the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Subodh Vasudeo Kolabkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Subhash Krishna Ramane and Ors. Vs Assistant Registrar for Co-Operative Socieities, Kolhapur and Ors.

Vishweshwar Namadeo Kamale Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mahadu Dagdu Kale and Others Vs State of Maharastghra and Others