Allowed

Balaji Bhaurao Sanap v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary School Education and Sports and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Apr 2023WP/8900/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside reversion orders against promoted clerks because the show-cause notice failed to disclose grounds regarding their eligibility for promotional posts, violating principles of natural justice. The court allowed the respondents to issue fresh notices.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; respondents directed to issue fresh show-cause notices; status quo maintained pending fresh decision.

Balaji Bhaurao Sanap Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1/515-WP-10876-2019.odt
6 April, 2023.

¶2

Rane

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 10876 OF 2019

¶6

Vidya Pandurang Bhadane.....Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors......Respondents

¶7

 WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 28553 OF 2019
Rajendra Bhanudas Mahire.....Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors......Respondents

¶8

 WRIT PETITION NO. 10416 OF 2019
Smt. Kishori Krishna Shirkar.....Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors......Respondents

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 8900 OF 2021

¶10

Shri. Balaji Bhaurao Sanap.....Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors......Respondents

¶11

2/515-WP-10876-2019.odt
6 April, 2023.

¶12

Rane

¶13

Mr. Prashant Bhavake i/by. Mr. Utkarsh Sureshrao Desai,
Advocate for the petitioner in WP-10876-2019.

¶14

Mr. Prashant Bhavake, Advocate for the petitioner in other three
connected matters.

¶15

Mr. B.V. Samant, AGP for State-respondent no.1.

¶16

Mr. Yatin Malavankar, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶17

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACTING CJ & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶18

DATE : 6th APRIL, 2023.

¶19

P.C. :

¶20

1. The petitioners are impugning the orders of

¶21

reversion.

¶22

2.All these petitioners were initially appointed as
Clerks on probation. Subsequently, promotion orders were
issued to them. Some of the petitioners were granted promotion
twice.

¶23

3. The petitioners are reverted on the basis of the order
passed by the State Government.

¶24

4. We have heard Mr. Bhavake, learned Advocate for
the petitioners. According to the learned Advocate, principles of
natural justice are violated. No proper show-cause notice was
issued to the petitioners. Hearing was not conducted. The
respondents, in flagrant violation of the principles of natural

¶25

3/515-WP-10876-2019.odt
6 April, 2023.

¶26

Rane

¶27

justice, have reverted the petitioners to the original post as
probationary Clerks. According to the learned Counsel, the
petitioners upon being promoted, acquired the qualification of
the promotional post, still they are reverted.

¶28

5. According to the learned Counsel for the
respondents, the petitioners were not possessing the
qualification for the post of Clerk. The petitioners were required
to possess necessary qualification of requisite speed in Marathi
and English Typing. The petitioners were not possessing the
same. However, inspite of that, the petitioners were promoted
in flagrant violation of the Recruitment Rules, 1998. Before
promoting to the next post, the petitioners were required to
work for minimum number of years on the post of District
Organiser. Before completion of the minimum number of years
that they were required to work, the petitioners were promoted.
The petitioners also did not possess the qualification of the
promotional post. All these aspects were considered and show-
cause notices were issued to the petitioners. Hearing was
conducted. However, the record of hearing has been
manipulated by the petitioners and after observing the principles
of natural justice, the orders of reversion are passed.

¶29

6. We have considered the submissions. There is no
dispute that all these petitioners were issued with the
promotional orders by the respondent-authorities. The dispute
is about the petitioners possessing the qualification of the entry
level post and subsequently the promotions being effected in
violation of the Recruitment Rules.

¶30

Rane

¶31

4/515-WP-10876-2019.odt
6 April, 2023.

¶32

7. Show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners. The
show-cause notice was based solely on the directions of the
State Government. The show-cause notice also narrates about
the Government Report. The show-cause notice states that
directions are received for reverting the petitioners. Copy of the
directions was annexed to the show-cause notices and
explanation was called from the petitioners. The order of the
State Government only stated that the petitioners were not
possessing the necessary qualifications for initial appointments
as Clerks i.e. not possessing requisite speed in Typing. On the
contrary, the impugned orders hold petitioners ineligible to hold
promotional posts as well.

¶33

The grounds in the office order reverting the petitioners does not find place in the show-cause notice of which explanation is called for. Infact the show-cause notice ought to contain the grounds of ineligibility because of which the petitioners cannot hold the promotional posts. The order had to be preceded with the show-cause notice. The show-cause notice only contains the grounds of ineligibility for initial recruitment. Since no assertion was made in the show cause notices in respect of eligibility to hold promotional posts, it was not possible for the petitioners to reply and meet the said grounds. The order cannot be beyond the scope of show-cause notice. In observance of the principles of natural justice, the show-cause notice should contain the grounds on which the explanation of the petitioners is sought for. As the show-cause notice did not contain the said grounds, the same cannot be sustained.

¶34

9. In the result, the impugned orders are set aside.

¶35

5/515-WP-10876-2019.odt
6 April, 2023.

¶36

Rane

¶37

10. The respondent is at liberty to issue fresh show-
cause notices to the petitioners. In case fresh show-cause
notices are issued to the petitioners, the petitioners shall reply to
the said show-cause notices within ten days from the date of the
receipt of the same.

¶38

11. Upon receipt of the explanation from the petitioners
within the time as stipulated above, the respondents may take
decision with regard to the eligibility of the petitioners to hold
the initial or promotional posts, afresh.

¶39

12. Till fresh decision is taken, status-quo as on today
with regard to the posts held by the petitioners, be maintained.

¶40

13. Depending upon the decision taken afresh, it is open
for the parties to take further steps.

¶41

14. It is made clear that we have not dilated on the
merits of the contentions of the parties.

¶42

16. Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of.

¶43

NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT

¶44

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶45

Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2023.04.11 10:30:37 +0530

Balaji Bhaurao Sanap v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary School Education and Sports and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaji Bhaurao Sanap v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary School Education and Sports and Anr.

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

G. N. Mohanty Vs Union of India and 7 Ors.

Clifford John Coelho Vs Central Regional Commissioner and 4 Ors.

Ramdas Mahadeo Khedkar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Prakash Tukaram Vaichal Vs Union of India Thr. Sec. Ministry of Personnel and Ors.

Prakash Tukaram Vaichal Vs Union of India Thr. Sec. Ministry of Personnel and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors. Vs Archana Prakash Charate