Allowed

Bhimgonda Appaji Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Nov 2007WP/2330/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition contesting a school head master's order declaring the petitioner surplus. The Court held that the order was liable to be set aside as it was contrary to a prior valid and un-settled order by the Education Officer.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed and the Rule made absolute, setting aside the impugned order dated 31-1-2007.

Bhimgonda Appaji Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 - 1 -

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.2330 OF 2007

¶5

 Shri Bhimgonda Appaji Patil ...Petitioner

¶6

 v/s.

¶7

 The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents

¶8

 Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner.

¶9

 Mr.A.H.Palekar, AGP for the Respondents Nos.1 to 3.

¶10

 Mr.M.S.Topkar for Respondents Nos. 32, 4, 6 & 7.

¶11

CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH&

¶12

 V.M.KANADE, JJ.

¶13

DATED:22ND NOVEMBER, 2007

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

¶16

 consent of parties.

¶17

 - 2 -

¶18

 2. By this Petition the Petitioner, who is
 admittedly in service of Respondent No.4-school makes
 a grievance against the order dated 31-1-2007 passed
 by the Head Master declaring the Petitioner as
 surplus in the service of the school because of the
 abolition of certain Divisions.

¶19

 3. The submission of the Petitioner is that this
 order is contrary to the order passed by the
 Education Officer under the provisions of M.E.P.S.Act
 and Rules framed thereunder dated 16-11-2006.
 According to that order, there are three teachers who
 are junior to the Petitioner. Admittedly, the order
 of the Education Officer dated 16-11-2006 has not
 been set aside and was definitely in force on
 31-1-2007 when the order declaring the Petitioner as
 surplus was made.

¶20

 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for all sides.

¶21

 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Management
 and the teachers, who are shown as junior to the
 Petitioner in the order dated 16-11-2006, except for
 saying that the Management and those teachers have

¶22

 - 3 -

¶23

 filed a petition in this court challenging the order
 dated 16-11-2006 is not in a position to explain as
 to how and why the Head Master passed the order dated
 31-1-2007, which is in terms contrary to the order of
 the Education Officer dated 16-11-2006 when
 admittedly that order is in force and was not set
 aside by any court or by any competent authority.
 There can be no debate that the order dated 31-1-2007
 is in terms contrary to the order dated 16-11-2006
 passed by the Education Officer, which shows that
 there are three teachers in school who are junior to
 the Petitioner. The order dated 31-1-2007 passed by
 the Head Master is, therefore, liable to be set
 aside.

¶24

 6. In the result, therefore, the present Petition
 succeeds and is allowed. Rule made absolute in terms
 of prayer clause (b) of the petition.

¶25

 (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)

¶26

 (V.M.KANADE, J.)

Bhimgonda Appaji Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhimgonda Appaji Patil 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

Shivaji Bhaurao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The Maharashtra State Co-Operative Cotton Growers Federation Ltd. Vs the Director of Marketing -through the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shushrusha Ravindranath Chintalwad Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ravindra Suresh Kandare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rahmatullah Mohd Ismail Shaikh Vs Zarina Rahmatullah Shaikh and Anr.

Balutai Wd/O. Pandurang Pukale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.