Remanded

Shri Rajendra Mohan Wabale and Anr. v. the Director Directorate of Technical Education and Anr.

Bombay HC3 May 2016WP/4632/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged a Director's order rejecting a petitioner's appointment approval. Receiving an assurance of a hearing, the high court disposed of the petition by setting aside the impugned order and directing a fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; impugned order of 20.02.2016 set aside; Director directed to pass fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing.

Shri Rajendra Mohan Wabale and Anr. Vs the Director… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

Sr.No.production 1

¶2

WP 4632.16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4632 OF 2016

¶5

Shri Rajendra Mohan Wabale and anr. ..Petitioners Versus The Director, Directorate of Technical Education and anr. ..Respondents

¶6

Mr.Dooman J. Dalal, advocate for the petitioners.

¶7

Mr. Siddhesh Ashok Pilankar i/b. Uday P. Warunjikar, advocate for caveator.

¶8

Ms. Geeta Sham Satam- Superintendent, Directorate of Technical Education is present.

¶9

CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR &

¶10

RANJIT MORE, J J.

¶11

DATE : 3^rd MAY, 2016.

¶12

P. C. :

¶13

Mentioned for production. Taken up on production board in

¶14

view of urgency.

¶15

Parties through their counsel.

¶16

The petitioners have challenged the order dated

¶17

20^th February, 2016 (annexed at “Exhibit F”) passed by the Director, Technical Education, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai, whereby the petitioner No.1's approval for appointment on the post of Principal has been rejected with retrospective effect.

¶18

Shubhada S Kadam 1/2

¶19

Sr.No.production 1

¶20

WP 4632.16

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that before passing the impugned order, the petitioners were not given an opportunity of hearing. Learned AGP, on instructions received from Ms. Geeta Sham Satam- Superintendent, Directorate of Technical Education, Mumbai, who is present before the Court, stated that the petitioners were issued show cause notice and after considering their reply, the decision has been taken but it has been fairly stated that no personal hearing was given to the petitioners. She, in the circumstances, submitted that the petitioners will be given an opportunity of personal hearing and, thereafter fresh order will be passed in accordance with law. Keeping in view the aforesaid statement made by learned AGP, in the presence of Ms. Geeta Sham Satam- Superintendent, Directorate of Technical Education, Mumbai, we are inclined to dispose of this petition by setting-aside the impugned order dated 20^th February, 2016 annexed at “Exhibit F” with further directions to the Director, Technical Education, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai, to pass fresh order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

¶22

[RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶23

[SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.]

¶24

Shubhada S Kadam 2/2

Shri Rajendra Mohan Wabale and Anr. v. the Director Directorate of Technical Education and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Rajendra Mohan Wabale and Anr. v. the Director Directorate of Technical Education and Anr.

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

Gopal Amar Thakur and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Fatimabi Noormohamed Bawani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Khandala Vibhag Shikshan Samiti through Secretary Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Education Dept. and Ors.

Shri. Chavan Dattajirao Namdeo Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Rupali Dipak Lakhan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sambhajee Ramchandra Deshmukh Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.