Allowed

Akka Chunya Pawra v. State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC17 Oct 2016WP/2664/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted a writ petition where an order cancelling the petitioner's status as a trained craft teacher without prior notice or hearing was challenged. The court applied the principle of audi alteram partem and quashed the impugned order, directing the respondent to hear the petitioner before making a fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 14.01.2015 quashed and set aside; respondent directed to hear petitioner before taking fresh decision; petitioner directed to appear on 16.11.2016.

Akka Chunya Pawra Vs State of Maharashtra and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 wp 2664.15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2664 OF 2015

¶4

Akka Chunya Pawra .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and another .. Respondents

¶7

Shri Kalyan Patil, Advocate h/f Shri S. R. Barlinge, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶8

Shri M. B. Bharaswadkar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶9

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND K. L. WADANE, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 17TH OCTOBER, 2016.

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was granted approval as trained craft teacher. However, the said approval was abruptly cancelled without notice to the petitioner and without hearing the petitioner by the impugned order dated 14.01.2015. As per the Schedule B to the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service Regulation) Act, the petitioner possesses required qualification.

¶13

Mr. Bharaswadkar, the learned A. G. P. states that, the petitioner does not possess the D. Ed. qualification, as such the

¶14

2 wp 2664.15

¶15

said order is rightly passed.

¶16

It is not disputed that, the services of the petitioner were approved as trained teacher vide order dated 06.06.2008 and the same was been continued. Abruptly vide the impugned order dated 14.01.2015 the same has been cancelled without notice to the petitioner.

¶17

Initially when the proposal seeking approval to the appointment is forwarded to the Education Officer, the Education Officer is not required to hear the candidate. However, when the approval is granted to the said appointment and same is sought to be cancelled, in such an eventuality, the petitioner who would be prejudicially affected ought to have been heard.

¶18

As the impugned order is passed without notice to the petitioner and without hearing the petitioner, the impugned order dated 14.01.2015 (Exhibit - D) is quashed and set aside. The respondent/Commissioner i. e. the respondent No. 2 shall before taking any decision with regard to the approval granted to the appointment of the petitioner shall hear the petitioner. The petitioner may appear before the respondent No. 2 on 16.11.2016. The respondent No. 2 shall thereafter take fresh decision with regard to the approval of the petitioner as a trained

¶19

3 wp 2664.15

¶20

teacher expeditiously. The writ petition accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶21

[ K. L. WADANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶22

bsb/Oct. 16

Akka Chunya Pawra v. State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akka Chunya Pawra v. State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijaykumar Ramrao Kotapalle Vs the Zilla Parishad Nanded and Ors.

Vilas Sambhaji Bhapkar and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sheetal Shriram Naik and Ors. Vs Manik Ambadasrao Labade and Ors.

Deepak Dilip Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dinesh Shankar Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anant Kamlakar Joshi and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others