Capuchin Friars Minor (Bom) Society Thr. Trustee And ORS v. The State Of Maha. Thr. Sec. School Education Dept. And ORS
Sneha Chavan 1 48-WP-5060-5005-23 (2).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5060 OF 2023 Capuchin Friars Minor (Bom) Society Thr. President And Ors
...Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Sec.
School Education Dept. And Ors
...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5005 OF 2023 SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Capuchin Friars Minor (Bom) Society Thr. Trustee And Ors
...Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Sec.
School Education Dept. And Ors
...Respondents
by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date:
2024.01.23 13:20:00 +0530 **** Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioners.
Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for the Respondents/State. **** CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND M.M.SATHAYE, JJ.
DATE :
11 JANUARY 2024 P.C.:
.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The table showing necessary details for passing common order, is as below.
Sneha Chavan 2 48-WP-5060-5005-23 (2).doc Writ Petition Name of Working as Impugned Order dated Passed by Respondent the Petitioner No.
Authority 5060/2023 Capuchin Friars Minor (Bom) Society & Ors Laboratory Assistant 06.10.2022 Resp. No. 2 Dy.
Director of Education, Mumbai Region, Mumbai 5005/2023 Capuchin Friars Minor (Bom) Society & Ors Junior Clerk 06.10.2022 Resp. No. 2 Dy.
Director of Education, Mumbai Region, Mumbai 2.
Petitioner No. 1 Managements, Petitioner No. 2 High-Schools and Petitioner No. 3 Employees (Jolly Jamsi Patil in WP/5060/2023 and Smita Prakash Alfanso in WP/5005/2023) are jointly challenging aforesaid impugned Orders passed by respective Respondent Authority, under which individual approvals granted by Education Inspector, North Division, Mumbai to Petitioner Nos. 3 - Employees, were canceled.
3.
It is submitted that, had an opportunity been given, the Petitioners would have given appropriate and necessary explanation about reason of cancellation.
Sneha Chavan 3 48-WP-5060-5005-23 (2).doc 4.
This method adopted by Respondent Authority of directly canceling the approvals, without informing proposed grounds of cancellation, is giving rise to unnecessary litigation which takes precious judicial time of this Court because an inquiry about the grounds are required to be done first time in this Court. 5.
In that view of the matter, we dispose of these petitions by directing that the aforesaid impugned orders will be treated as notices to the the Petitioner Educational Institute of the proposed ground/s of cancellation. The Petitioners' proposals stand restored. If there are any other grounds on which the Respondent Authority intends to cancel the approvals, it is directed to communicate the same to the Petitioner Educational Institute, within a period of 3 weeks from today.
6.
The Educational Institute shall thereafter submit its explanation to the proposed grounds of cancellation, along with supporting material and case laws / orders of this Court, if relied upon. The Respondent No. 2 Authority is directed to decide the proposals thereafter within a period of 8 weeks, by dealing with the explanation/s given by the Educational Institute as also dealing with case law/orders of this Court, by passing a reasoned order, subject to other time bound directions.
7.
We have not expressed any opinion on the Petitioners' proposals and the same shall be decided on its own merits in
Sneha Chavan 4 48-WP-5060-5005-23 (2).doc accordance with law. Needless to mention that if the concerned Respondent Authority proceeds to grant proposal for Shalarth IDs, the aforesaid procedure/directions will not apply. The contention of the Petitioners that once approval is granted, Shalarth ID cannot be rejected, is kept open.
8.
The writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ( M.M. SATHAYE, J.) ( NITIN JAMDAR, J.)