Mangal Uttam Shewale v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

916-2-wp-3888-2018.odt (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 916 WRIT PETITION NO.3888 OF 2018 MANGAL UTTAM SHEWALE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Brahme Shailesh P. AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. S.R. Yadav-Lonikar ...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & S.G. MEHARE, J.J.

DATED : 17th JULY, 2021 PER COURT:- 1.

By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider the previous service of the petitioner for the purposes of seniority, continuity, increment, promotion and retirement benefts. In support of this prayer, it is further prayed that the letter of approval dated 29.10.2012 issued by respondent no.2 may be modifed or respondent no.2 may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh. The petitioners have tendered their representations, all dated 06.01.2018 and the Education Ofcer has yet not dealt with it. 2.

We have considered the submissions put-forth by the learned AGP on the basis of the afdavit in reply fled by respondent no.2. We see that there are a few disputed questions for which the petitioners need to be heard by the Education Ofcer. These issues are not refected in the approval order dated 29.10.2012. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they have been working since the academic year 19951996, the approval orders actually amount to placing the petitioners on probation, by disregarding or ignoring their earlier employment.

916-2-wp-3888-2018.odt (2) 3.

In view of the above, we fnd it advantageous to direct the Education Ofcer to consider the representation fled by the petitioner dated 06.01.2018, on it's own merits. While considering the said representation, it would be appropriate for the Education Ofcer to issue a notice of hearing to the petitioner and after considering the submissions of the petitioner, pass a reasoned order. If the petitioner is aggrieved by an adverse order passed by the Education Ofcer, he/she shall be at liberty to avail of a remedy as is permissible in law. 4.

In view of the above, this petition is disposed of. We expect respondent no.2 to comply with the above directions as expeditiously as possible. Nevertheless, a reasonable opportunity of hearing be granted to the petitioners and in the event of an adverse order being passed, such order would be supported with reasons to be assigned by the Education Ofcer.

(S.G. MEHARE. J) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J) Mujaheed//