Partly allowed

Chandrashekhar S/O Sahebrao Bhise v. Education Officer (Secondary), Z. P. Nagpur and 2 Others

Bombay HC23 Mar 2015WP/6487/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to interfere with an order granting powers to a respondent. The court directed the Education Officer to decide the petitioner's headmaster proposal within three months, reserving the seniority issue for the appointment process.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Education Officer to decide the petitioner's headmaster appointment proposal within three months; decline to interfere with the impugned order.

Chandrashekhar S/O Sahebrao Bhise Vs Education Officer… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1/2

¶2

wp6487.1 4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 6487 OF 2014

¶5

Chandrashekhar S/o Sahebrao Bhise

¶6

-vs-

¶7

Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and others

¶8

Office notes, Office Memoranda of

¶9

Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶10

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶11

Mr.Nitin Khamborkar, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs.A.R.Taiwade, AGP for the respondent No.1. Mr.S.D.Abhyankar, counsel for the respondent No.2. Mr.R.D.Karode, counsel for the respondent No.3.

¶12

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & A.M.BADAR, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 23.03.2015.

¶14

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the respondent No.1, dated 26/11/2014 granting financial and administrative powers to the respondent No.2.

¶15

According to the petitioner, though the petitioner is sought to be promoted on the post of headmaster by the majority of the trustees, the Education Officer has illegally granted the financial and administrative powers to the respondent No.2. It is stated that the said order could not have bee passed, when the proposal for appointment of the petitioner on the post of headmaster is pending with the Education Officer. It is further stated that the Education Officer could not have observed in the affidavit-in-reply that the respondent No.2 is senior to the petitioner as the issue stands answered in favour of the petitioner by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7699 of 2014.

¶16

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we decline to interfere with the order granting financial and

¶17

2/2

¶18

wp6487.1 4

¶19

administrative powers to the respondent No.2. Nothing has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioner to show that financial and administrative powers could have been granted only in favour of the senior most teacher and not to anybody else. We are not considering the issue in regard to the inter se seniority between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 as that aspect would be looked into while considering the proposal of the petitioner for grant of approval on the post of headmaster.

¶20

Hence, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent No.1-Education Officer (Secondary) to decide the proposal for appointment of the petitioner on the post of headmaster as early as possible and positively within a period of three months in accordance with law.

¶21

Order accordingly. No costs.

¶22

JUDGE

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

KHUNTE

Chandrashekhar S/O Sahebrao Bhise v. Education Officer (Secondary), Z. P. Nagpur and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrashekhar S/O Sahebrao Bhise v. Education Officer (Secondary), Z. P. Nagpur and 2 Others

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

Sumit S/O Mahesh Naidu Vs Mrs. Sonam W/O Sumit Naidu

Arunodaya Magaswargiya Mazoor Kamgar Sahkari Sanstha Ltd., through Its President, Nagpur Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and 2

Vasant S/O Gorba Bele Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, School Education Department, Mumbai and 3 Others

Sau. Bhumika W/O Bhaulal Tembhurnikar (Maiden Name Ku. Ratnamala Tarachand Nandeshwar) Vs Zilla Parishad Bhandara through Its C.E.O. Bhandara and Others

Gajanan Mahadeorao Deodhagale Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Another

Vatsala Narendra Mokshmar and Others Vs State of Maharshtra through Secretary , State Excise Deptt. Manteralaya, Mumbai and Others