Partly allowed

Mo. Sayeed Ab. Rashid v. Nagar Parishad Washim Thr. Chief Officer Washim and Others

Bombay HC4 Aug 2017WP/4046/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned the refusal of promotion approval by the Education Officer for a petitioner's elevation to Headmaster. The Court held that the impugned order was unreasoned and lacked application of mind. It was quashed, and the authority was directed to reconsider the matter after providing a hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

The unreasoned order dated 16.06.2016 was quashed. The respondent was directed to reconsider the controversy and provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent no.4. An appropriate

Mo. Sayeed Ab. Rashid Vs Nagar Parishad Washim Thr… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2017)

Order

0408wp4046.16

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 4046/2016.

¶6

Mo. Sayeed Ab. Rashid - VERSUS-

¶7

Nagar Parishad, Washim and others.

¶8

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶9

CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI AND ROHIT B. DEO, JJ.

¶10

DATE : AUGUST 04, 2017.

¶11

Heard Shri Anand Deshpande, learned

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. R. Kalia, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.2. None appears for other respondents.

¶13

Petitioner is an employee of respondent no.1 Municipal Council and hence provisions of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 are not applicable. Petitioner claims that his employer has promoted him

¶14

vide resolution no.11 dated 09.03.2016 as Headmaster, but, respondent no.2 Education Officer has refused approval to it by unreasoned one line

Order

0408wp4046.16

order.

Learned A.G.P. points out that respondent

¶20

no.4 appears to be senior, promotion of a junior cannot be accepted and hence, approval has not been granted.

¶21

Reasons given by respondent no.1 Education Officer appears only on affidavit in reply filed before this Court. The order impugned dated 16.06.2016 does not contain any such application of mind.

¶22

Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for petitioner submits that if respondent no.4 has not challenged order of promotion before Competent Authority, the order needs to be given effect to. According to him there is no such challenge and hence, respondent no.2 does not possess jurisdiction to reject approval on that ground.

¶23

We need not delve more into this controversy. As the order dated 16.06.2016 is unreasoned, the same is quashed and set aside. We direct respondent no.2 to reconsider the entire controversy and if necessary, provide opportunity of hearing to petitioner, his employer as also respondent no.4. Appropriate final order in this respect shall be

Order

0408wp4046.16

passed within a period of next three months.

¶28

Writ Petition is thus, partly allowed and

¶29

disposed of. No costs.

¶30

JUDGE JUDGE

¶31

Rgd.

Mo. Sayeed Ab. Rashid v. Nagar Parishad Washim Thr. Chief Officer Washim and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mo. Sayeed Ab. Rashid v. Nagar Parishad Washim Thr. Chief Officer Washim and Others

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

Ku. Sonam D/O Ashok Baitalwar Vs the State of Maharashtra, Department of Revenue, Mumbai and Others

Rasika Rajesh Pohare Vs Director General of Health Sciences, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Govt. of India) and Anr.

Expo India Exhibition Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Thr. Anilkumar K.P. Director of Expo. India Exh. Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Other

Purushottam Gopal Sorate Vs Superintending Engineer, Maha. State Distribution Company Ltd., Bhandara and Another

Lekraj Ganpatrao Dhakate Vs Superintending Engineer, Maha. State Distribution Company Ltd., Bhandara and Another

Dinesh Panjabrao Gawande and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Ministry of Urban Department, Mumbai and Others