Quashed

Smt. Reshma Arjun Ranmode v. Shri. Subhash Martand Suryawanshi

Bombay HC18 Jul 2017CAW/438/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order revoking his appointment as Head Master under Article 227. The court set aside the impugned order for violating the principle of natural justice as the petitioner was not heard before the decision was passed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 08.08.2016 set aside. Fresh notice not to be issued; parties to appear before 2nd respondent by 31.07.2017.

Smt. Reshma Arjun Ranmode Vs Shri. Subhash Martand… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

WP10425_16.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.10425 OF 2016

¶4

Subhash Martand Suryawanshi … Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Secondary Education Department and others … Respondents

¶5

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.438 OF 2017 in W.P.NO.10425 OF 2016 Reshma Arjun Ranmode … Applicant Vs. Subhash Martand Suryanshi … Respondent

¶6

Mr. Sanjeev P. Kadam for Petitioner. Ms K. P. Kulkarni, AGP for Respondents No.1 and 2-State. Mr. Kalpesh U. Patil for Respondent No.3. Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar for Respondent No.4. Mr. Meelan S. Topkar for Applicant.

¶7

CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J. DATE : JULY 18, 2017

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

Heard Mr. Kadam, learned Counsel for petitioner, Ms Kulkarni, learned AGP for respondents No.1 and 2-State, Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for respondent No.3, Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned Counsel for respondent No.4 and Mr. Topkar, learned Counsel for applicant at length.

¶10

By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.08.2016 passed by the respondent No.2, Education Officer (Secondary), Pune Zilla Parishad, Pune by which he has revoked the approval given to the petitioner's appointment as Head Master in the school run by the third respondent herein.

¶11

1/3

¶12

WP10425_16.sxw

¶13

Civil Application No.438 of 2017 is filed by Ms Reshma Arjun Ranmode, claiming to be President of the third respondent, for impleadment as respondent No.5 in this Petition. As I am proposing to set aside the impugned order on the short count that petitioner was not heard before passing the impugned order, Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) with no order as to costs. Amendment shall be carried out forthwith.

¶14

The controversy in this Petition is as regards the authority given to the petitioner. Petitioner and the third respondent submitted that after the retirement of Head Mistress Alka Suresh Patil, petitioner being the senior most Assistant Teacher was promoted to the post of Head Master by order dated 01.07.2015. As against this, it is the case of the fourth respondent that petitioner was only authorized to sign the pay-bills as also record of the school. The petitioner was appointed as in-charge Head Master for a temporary period from 01.06.2015 to 30.08.2015.

¶15

Rule. Learned Counsel for respective respondents waive service. At the request and by consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the Petition is taken up for final hearing.

¶16

A perusal of the impugned order shows that though reference No.3 records that hearing took place before the second respondent on 06.08.2016, it is not disputed that the petitioner was not heard. In view thereof, on this short count alone, the impugned order dated 08.08.2016 passed by the respondent No.2 deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. Parties, including the applicant (added respondent No.5) agree that they will appear before the 2^nd respondent on 31.07.2017 at 11.00 a.m. and for that purpose no fresh notice be issued

¶17

2/3

¶18

WP10425_16.sxw

¶19

to them. Respondent No.2 shall decide the proceedings within four weeks from the appearance of the parties in accordance with law. All contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open. Till such time the decision is taken and for the period of two weeks thereafter, the interim arrangement authorizing petitioner to sign pay-bills and the school records shall continue to remain in force. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Order accordingly.

¶20

(R. G. KETKAR, J.)

¶21

Minal Parab

¶22

3/3

Smt. Reshma Arjun Ranmode v. Shri. Subhash Martand Suryawanshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Reshma Arjun Ranmode v. Shri. Subhash Martand Suryawanshi

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

Manthan Development Corporation and 5 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

M/S. Raymond Ltd. Vs Rajesh Bhadange and Ors.

M/S. Raymond Ltd. Vs Pramod Bhise and Ors.

The Principal, Pancham Khemraj Mahavidyalaya and Anr. Vs Shri Jagannath Ramkrishna Sawant and Ors.

The Principal, Pancham Khemraj Mahavidyalaya and Anr. Vs Shri. Somnath Vishram Dalvi and Ors.

The Principal, Pancham Khemraj Mahavidyalaya and Anr. Vs Shri. Krushna Sakharam Desai and Ors.