Allowed

Manoj a. Warghade v. Indian Education Soc. through Chairman and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Aug 2017WP/9459/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This consolidated order affirmed that authorities cannot review and cancel previously granted job approvals for teachers absent fraud or misrepresentation, citing settled legal principles. The court allowed petitions after respondents agreed to withdraw impugned orders and restore service benefits.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to recall impugned cancellation orders within two weeks, restore service benefits, and release withheld salaries immediately.

Manoj a. Warghade Vs Indian Education Soc. through… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

907-wp-9405-17.doc

¶2

Ladda(PS).

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

(1) WRIT PETITION NO. 9405 of 2017

¶6

Rajesh Dattatraya Tandale & Ors ..Petitioners. Vs

¶7

Director of Education (Secondary) Zilla Parishad & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶8

A/WITH (2) WRIT PETITION NO. 9407 of 2017

¶9

Mrs. Vaishali Rama Patil & Anr ..Petitioners Vs

¶10

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents.

¶11

A/WITH (3) WRIT PETITION NO. 9408 of 2017

¶12

Mrs. Mrunal Mandar Joshi & Anr ..Petitioners. Vs

¶13

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents.

¶14

A/WITH (4) WRIT PETITION No. 9409 of 2017

¶15

Mrs. Nikita Vaman Zope & Anr. ..Petitioners. Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents.

¶16

A/WITH (5) WRIT PETITION No. 9410 of 2017

¶17

Shri Bade Sambaji Haribhau ..Petitioner.

1 /9

907-wp-9405-17.doc

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶22

..Respondents.

¶23

A/WITH (6) WRIT PETITION No. 9411 of 2017

¶24

Mrs. Mohini K. Patil & Anr

¶25

..Petitioners.

¶26

¶27

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶28

..Respondents.

¶29

A/WITH (7) WRIT PETITION No. 9412 of 2017

¶30

Mrs. Patil Shubhangi Shivaji & Anr

¶31

..Petitioners.

¶32

¶33

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶34

..Respondents.

¶35

A/WITH (8) WRIT PETITION No. 9459 of 2017

Manoj A. Warghade

..Petitioner.

Indian Education Society & Ors

¶40

..Respondents.

¶41

A/WITH (9) WRIT PETITION No. 8997 of 2017

¶42

Mrs. Nikam Pradnya Sagar & Anr Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr

¶43

..Petitioners.

¶44

..Respondents.

¶45

A/WITH (10) WRIT PETITION No. 8647 of 2017

¶46

Ms. Dubey Seema Hawaldar & Anr Vs

..Petitioners.

2 /9

907-wp-9405-17.doc

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents.

¶51

A/WITH (11) WRIT PETITION No. 8995 of 2017 Raju Deoji Chavan ..Petitioner. Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents.

¶52

A/WITH (12) WRIT PETITION No. 8996 of 2017 Ramesh Bhau Ide ..Petitioner. Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. A/WITH (13) WRIT PETITION No. 9527 of 2017 Sau. Lata Ramesh Taravadekar & Anr ..Petitioners. Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. A/WITH (14) WRIT PETITION No. 9539 of 2017 Smt. Dhanashri Rajaram Kadam ..Petitioner. Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. A/WITH (15) WRIT PETITION No. 9541 of 2017 Sandesh Tatya Tulsankar & Anr ..Petitioners. Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents.

¶53

3 /9

¶54

907-wp-9405-17.doc

¶55

A/WITH (16) WRIT PETITION No. 9547 of 2017

¶56

Sachin Vasant Patil ..Petitioner. Vs

¶57

The State of Maharashtra & Ors

¶58

..Respondents.

¶59

A/WITH (17) WRIT PETITION Stamp No. 22530 of 2017

¶60

Kusum Ravindra Yadav ..Petitioner. Vs

¶61

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶62

(18) A/WITH WRIT PETITION Stamp No. 22506 of 2017

¶63

Menka Nityanand Poojary ..Petitioner. Vs

¶64

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶65

(19) A/WITH WRIT PETITION Stamp No. 22529 of 2017

¶66

Dhananjay Motilal Prajapati ..Petitioner. Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents.

¶67

Mr. Ram S. Apte, Senior Advocate a/with Saurabh Oka, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P. No. 9405/2017 and W.P. No. 9459/2017.

¶68

4 /9

¶69

907-wp-9405-17.doc

¶70

Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar, Advocate a/with Mandar G. Bagkar for petitioner in W.P. No. 8647/2017, W.P. No. 8995/2017 and W.P. No. 8996/2017, W.P. No. 9527/2017.

¶71

Mr. Chetan G. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P. No. 9539/2017, W.P. No. 9547/2017.

¶72

Mr. Satish S. Raut, Advocate for petitioner in W.P. Stamp No.22506/2017, W.P. Stamp No.22529/2017, W.P. Stamp No. 22530/2017.

¶73

Mr. A.P. Vanarase, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1 in W.P. No.9405/2017 and for Respondent No. 1 and 2 in W.P. No. 9407/2017 to W.P. No. 9412/2017.

¶74

Ms. Kavita N. Salunkhe, A.G.P. for Respondent No.2 in W.P. No. 9459/2017, W.P. No. 9541/2017.

¶75

Mrs. R.M. Shinde, A.G.P. for all the respondents in W.P. No. 8647/2017.

¶76

W.P. No. 8995/2017 to W.P. No. 8997/2017, W.P. No.9527/2017, W.P. No. 9539/2017, W.P. No.9541/2017, W.P.Stamp No.22506/2017, W.P.Stamp No.22529/2017, W.P. Stamp No. 22530/2017.

¶77

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND SMT. BHARATI H.DANGRE, JJ. DATE : 22nd August, 2017

¶78

FINAL ORDER :

¶79

1) Statement is made by the learned Counsel appearing for

¶80

the parties that the petitioners' cases are governed on facts as

¶81

5 /9

¶82

907-wp-9405-17.doc

¶83

well as on law by a judgment of this Court in Appellate Side Writ Petition No. 8818 of 2017 and other connected matters dated 14^th August, 2017. The learned AGP is conceding this position.

¶84

This Court after hearing the parties and similar placed

¶85

facts and circumstances of the case, passed the following order :-

¶86

“Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties as the common issues are involved and so also the action of common respondents, we are inclined to dispose of the present writ petitions by this common order, as agreed by all. Learned A.G.P. waives service of notice for the Respondent-State in all the matters.

¶87

The petitioners are working as Assistant Teacher in their respective Institutions since long, ranging from 6 to 12 years. They were appointed on vacant posts after following the due procedure of law, initially as a Shikhan Sevaks, after three years approvals were granted, and confirmed/appointed as Assistant Teachers. At both stages, the concerned respondents/officers in the respective petitions have granted approvals as required in accordance with law. All the petitioners therefore in view of this have

¶88

6 /9

¶89

907-wp-9405-17.doc

¶90

been in service in the respective posts.

¶91

The respondents, suddenly based upon a report of the Commissioner, (Education) Maharashtra State, Pune initiated the proceedings/impugned action of cancellation of approvals, already granted since long. It is stated that the said Commissioner did issue show cause notice, but without specifying the changes/reasons, for intended action.

¶92

The respondents Authorities, who have granted the approvals so recorded above, have recalled the order of approval by cancelling it without following the due procedure of law specifically, in spite of a Division Bench Judgment of this Court (Coram: B.R.Gavai & Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ) in Writ Petition No 10133 of 2016 (Shivanee Deshpande Vs. State of Maharashtra and others) and other connected matters, whereby it is specifically held after considering the similar situation, as under:

¶93

“By now, it is settled principle of law that unless the power of review is specifically or by necessary implication provided, the authority cannot review its own order. No doubt, if an order is obtained by exercising fraud, it would stand vitiated. However, it is not the case of the respondent-Education Officer that the petitioners have obtained their initially orders by fraudulent means. It is further observed in the said order as

¶94

7 /9

¶95

907-wp-9405-17.doc

¶96

under if the earlier Education Officer had granted approval to the petitioners' appointment, may be erroneously, the same cannot be made a ground to recall the same and pass contrary order, unless a case of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression is made out. Particularly, when most of the petitioners have already put in their services for 11 years, the impugned orders would amount to penalising them for no fault on their part”.

¶97

In view of the above, there is a force in the contention so raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. The learned AGP therefore on instructions, conceded to the position of law and makes statement that the concerned respondents/ officers/authorities shall recall the impugned order/action and related proceeding, if any dated 27^th June, 2017 or such other dates as early as possible, preferably within two weeks; and they will also recall/withdraw their impugned action and/or orders of cancellation of approval in question. Further, they will grant/continue to provide all service benefits / entitlement to the petitioners or such teachers.

¶98

In the interest of justice and to avoid further delay and complication, we are inclined to accept the statement made the learned AGP on behalf of the respondents-authorities. In view of this, we are inclined to dispose of these petitions by keeping all contentions open of both sides.

¶99

8 /9

¶100

907-wp-9405-17.doc

¶101

It is made clear that in view of withdrawal of the impugned action so referred to above, all the petitioners/teachers are entitled for all the requisite benefits as they are otherwise entitled in law. The concerned respondents, within a period of three weeks, will take effective steps to avoid further delay. It is made clear that once the impugned action / order is withdrawn as recorded above of the consequential benefits including their salaries need to be immediately released, if withhold for such reasons.

¶102

All the writ petitions are allowed accordingly. No costs.

¶103

The parties to act on the basis of an authenticated copy of this order.”

¶104

In view of above, for the same reasons, we are inclined to extend the same reliefs to the petitioners also. The respondents are granted three weeks time from today. Accordingly, all the petitions are allowed. No order as to costs. The parties to act on the basis of an authenticated copy of this order.

¶105

(SMT. BHARATI H.DANGRE,J) (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J)

¶106

9 /9

Manoj a. Warghade v. Indian Education Soc. through Chairman and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj a. Warghade v. Indian Education Soc. through Chairman and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tushar Vilas Thakur Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Popat Shankar Hakke Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Mahadeo Yashwant Kolekar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary and Ors.

M/S. Vikram Computec, through Its Proprietor Shri. Pravin Jain Vs Board of Directors, Central Bank of India and Ors.

Mrs. Nikita Vaman Zope and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary and Anr.

Mrs. Mohini K. Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary and Anr.