Allowed

Shri Amol Bhoju Dalvi v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Education Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Jan 2018WP/8876/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the withdrawal of an appointment approval. It held that an affidavit in reply could not improve the impugned order citing Mohinder Singh Gill. Quashing the order for violation of natural justice, it remitted the matter to the Education Officer with a direction to afford a hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 26.06.2014 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the Education Officer for a fresh decision after hearing.

Shri Amol Bhoju Dalvi Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8876 OF 2015

¶2

Shri Amol Bhoju Dalvi ..Petitioner

¶3

Vs.

¶4

The State of Maharashtra and Others ..Respondents

¶5

Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar I/b Mr. S. A. Mane, for the Petitioner. Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5. Ms. Trupti V. Tambe, for Respondent No.6.

¶6

CORAM:- B.R.GAVAI & B. P. COLABAWALLA,JJ. DATE :- JANUARY 22, 2018.

¶7

P. C.:

¶8

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by

¶9

consent.

¶10

2 The Petition challenges the order dated 26^th June, 2014 vide which the approval granted to the Petitioner vide orders dated 23^rd June, 2014 and 25^th June, 2014 has been withdrawn.

¶11

3 The perusal of the impugned order dated 26^th June, 2014 would reveal that, the approval is withdrawn on the ground that the post on which the Petitioner was appointed was not a

¶12

Aswale 1/2

¶13

sanctioned post.

¶14

4 However, in the affidavit in reply, totally different reason is given. It is stated in the affidavit that the post on which the Petitioner was appointed was a reserved post and the Petitioner belongs to an open category.

¶15

5 The Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another v/s the Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 has held that the affidavits cannot improve the impugned order. There is another ground on which the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is not preceded by the principle of natural justice in as much as neither the Petitioner nor the management were given a show cause notice prior to withdrawal of the same.

¶16

6 In that view of the matter, the Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Education Officer for deciding it afresh in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned.

¶17

( B. P. COLABAWALLA, J. ) ( B. R. GAVAI, J. )

¶18

Aswale 2/2

Shri Amol Bhoju Dalvi v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Education Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Amol Bhoju Dalvi v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Education Dept. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Sadhana Chandrakant Bhandari Vs P.N. Salve. (the Principle) and Ors.

Lotus Refineries Pvt. Ltd., and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shaikh Zaibunnisa Mohammed Usman Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Anil Menon Vs Union of India and Anr.

Sadashiv Appasaab Jangond Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mahesh Shamrao Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra