Remanded

Zahoor Gulam Hussain Deshpande v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC21 Nov 2016WP/2480/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the Education Officer's order directing the petitioner to approach the school management regarding his transfer. The Court held the officer failed to apply mind to the seniority list and remapped the issue for a fresh decision after an appeal.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Education Officer dated 22.8.2015 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to file an appeal within 15 days for a fresh decision.

Zahoor Gulam Hussain Deshpande Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp 2480.16.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2480 OF 2016

¶5

Zahoor Gulam Hussain Deshpande Age : 45 years, occupation: service resident of Sathghar Mohalla Near Sunni Masjid, At Paldhi, Taluka Dharangaon District Jalgaon Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 The State of Maharashtra through Secretary School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032

¶8

2 The Secretary Anjuman – Khidmat-E-Khalkh Jalgaon

¶9

3 Head Master MTP Urdu High School Paldhi Taluka Dharangaon District Jalgaon

¶10

4 The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon Respondents

¶11

Mrs. A.N. Ansari advocate for the petitioner Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 & 4 Mr. G.A. Nagori advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3

¶12

CORAM : R.M. BORDE &

¶13

SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ

¶14

(Date : 21st November, 2016.)

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶16

(Per: R.M. Borde, J)

¶17

1 Heard.

¶18

wp 2480.16.odt

¶19

{2}

¶20

2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final decision at admission stage.

¶21

3 The petitioner is working as a Peon in a school, operated by Respondent No.2 institution. The petitioner was appointed on 14.6.1989 and is placed at Sr.No.5 in the seniority list of nonteaching staff for the year 2014-2015, maintained by the institution. The petitioner came to be transferred from one school to another, which was objected by the petitioner by presenting an application to the Education Officer. The Education Officer, however directed the petitioner to approach the institution, since the order of transfer is by way of absorption in K.K. Urdu High School, Jalgaon. The petitioner claims that, he is the senior most peon and there are three other employees from the said category listed in the seniority list, maintained by the institution who have been retained by the management.

¶22

4 Although the management, in the affidavit in reply has not stated anything about declaration of the petitioner as a surplus employee, the petitioner has invited our attention to the list maintained by Zilha Parishad of surplus employees, which includes the name of petitioner at Sr.No.460. The petitioner has been, in fact, treated as surplus employee, in disregard to the seniority list

¶23

{3} wp 2480.16.odt

¶24

maintained by the institution. The management, in its affidavit in reply has also accepted the fact that, the petitioner is the senior most employee in the category of peon and he has not been considered as a surplus employee. This issue appears to have been lost sight of, by the Education Officer, while directing the petitioner to approach the management. The management appears to have erroneously transferred the petitioner, treating him surplus, in disregard to the seniority list maintained by the institution.

¶25

5 The issue, as regards the seniority of the petitioner and as to whether he could be declared as surplus employee, together with the issue as to the legality and correctness of the transfer order issued by the management are required to be dealt with by the Education Officer.

¶26

6 The order passed by the Education Officer on 22.8.2015 appears to have been passed without application of mind to the record of the case and as such, deserves to be quashed and set aside and it is accordingly quashed and set aside. It would be open for the petitioner to file a detail appeal/representation to the Education Officer, within a period of 15 days from today. The Education Offer shall take appropriate decision on the appeal /

¶27

{4} wp 2480.16.odt

¶28

representation that would be tendered by the petitioner within one month on its own merit and in accordance with provisions of

¶29

law.

¶30

7 Rule is accordingly made absolute.

¶31

8 There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

(SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J) (R.M.BORDE, J)

¶33

vbd

Zahoor Gulam Hussain Deshpande v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zahoor Gulam Hussain Deshpande v. the State of Maharashtra and 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

Osmanabad District Central Co. Operative Bank Ltd. and Another Vs Shri Tuljabhawani Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Osmanabad

Chandrakant Dattatraye Kokate Vs Ramling Nivrutti Shinde and Others

Seema Lahu Kolhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sudha Meherbabu Shriramwar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Balaji Ganpat Giri Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Madhao Marotrao Shinde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others