Quashed

Avdhut R. Bhise and 9 Ors. v. the Joint Director of Vocational Educagion and Traning ,Technical Education and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC6 Sept 2013WP/1565/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned excess staff regarding absorption rules. The Division Bench quashed an order relying on a letter not served to the petitioners, directing the respondent to decide the representation afresh after hearing the petitioners on that specific communication.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order dated 10.5.2013. Directed respondent no.1 to decide the petitioners' representation afresh after giving them an opportunity of being heard. Directed the Presiding officer to

Avdhut R. Bhise and 9 Ors. Vs the Joint… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

KJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.1565 OF 2013

¶3

Avdhut R.Bhise & Ors. ....Petitioners V/s. Bombay Diocesan Society & Ors. ....Respondents

¶4

Mr.Sunil D.Dighe for the petitioners.

¶5

Ms.Sindha Sreedharan AGP for the respondent nos.1 to 3 & 6. Mr.Pradeep Bakhru along with Mr.Amrut Joshi i/by Wadia Gandhy & co. for respondent nos.4 & 5.

¶6

CORAM : S.J.VAZIFDAR & K.R.SHRIRAM,JJ

¶7

DATE : 6th September , 2013.

¶8

P.C. :-

¶9

1 The petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition No.1620 of 2012 which was disposed of by an order dated 15^th February, 2013. The Division Bench recorded the statement on behalf of the petitioners that they intended filing a comprehensive representation before the Joint Director of Vocational Education & Training in support of their plea that their rights would be governed by Rule 26 and not by Rule 25-A of the MEPS Rules 1981. The Division Bench directed the Joint Director to take a decision on the representation within six weeks of the filing thereof after hearing all the affected

¶10

parties including the teachers and the management. The petitioners made a representation and the same was heard on 14.3.2013 and 20.3.2013. The matter was reserved for orders on 28.3.2013.

¶11

2 It appears that thereafter a letter dated 23.4.2013 was forwarded to the Joint Director. The letter dated 23.4.2013 states that the authorities had given a direction that the syllabus with which the petitioners are concerned, are not being closed by the Government and it was the management who decided to close the same. Accordingly it would be the responsibility of the institution to absorb the petitioners/excess staff as per Rule 25-A of the MEPS Rules. The order further states that for this, the Government has given sanction/direction. Admittedly this letter was not forwarded to the petitioners. It was important that the petitioners ought to have been given an opportunity of dealing with the same as the same affected their rights. In fact, the impugned order dated 10.5.2013 specifically refers to this letter and the contents thereof. The order was based partly if not substantially on the basis of that letter. The impugned order is therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside with a direction to respondent no.1 to decide the petitioners' representation afresh after giving the petitioners an opportunity of being heard in respect of the communication/letter dated 23.4.2013.

¶12

3 It is not possible for us in the meantime, to direct the Government or the management to continue to pay the salary to the petitioners.

¶13

4 However, the petitioners state that there are vacant posts with the management which can be filled-in by them. Considering the facts of the case, the management is requested to consider the matter and to see if it is possible to absorb the petitioners.

¶14

5 Neither the pendency of these proceedings nor the pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 9 of the MEPS Rules will prevent the respondent nos.1, 2 & 3 from absorbing the petitioners if they so desire.

¶15

6 The hearing shall be concluded and order shall be passed within four weeks from today. The Presiding officer of the School Tribunal is requested to proceed with the petitioners' appeal as and when it appears on board and without adjourning the same unless it is absolutely necessary.

¶16

7 The Writ petition accordingly disposed of.

¶17

(K.R.SHRIRAM,J) (S.J.VAZIFDAR,J)

Avdhut R. Bhise and 9 Ors. v. the Joint Director of Vocational Educagion and Traning ,Technical Education and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avdhut R. Bhise and 9 Ors. v. the Joint Director of Vocational Educagion and Traning ,Technical Education and 5 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

Sandhya Sudhir Mahadik Vs Jogeshwari Education Society and Ors.

Mr. Ramesh Devidas Tarale Vs the Chief Officer, Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board, and 4 Ors.

M/S. Spectrum Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Principal Housing Secretary and 3 Ors.

Smt.Jayanti Sitaram Aiyar Vs the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

Mahavir Plantations Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Reserve Bank of India and Anr.

Ms. Shradha Mahadev Mahajan Vs the Registrar, University of Bombay