1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3483 OF 2009. Shaikh Saleh Shaikh Mahboob Age 60 years, Occu. Junior Assistant Resident of Budhi Lane, Opp. New Aurangabad Time, Aurangabad .. PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032. 2) Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. 3) The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad . RESPONDENTS. ... Ms. A.N. Ansari, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent No. 1 & 3. Shri U.B. Bondar, Advocate for respondent No. 2. CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 11th FEBRUARY 2010. PER COURT: (S.S. Shinde, J.) 2 1. Heard Learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. Rule, returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission. This Writ Petition takes exception to the order dated 10-09-2008 passed in Appeal-2008- DB-Appeal-Cell-26, by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. The principal grievance in this petition is that, while deciding the appeal filed by the present petitioner, the respondent No. 3 being an Appellate authority ought to have considered the entire record of the case and evidence in the matter and by recording its own findings ought to have decided the appeal filed by the petitioner. It is further case of the petitioner that, the respondent No. 3 while rejecting the appeal filed by the present petitioner has not assigned its own reasons for dismissal of the appeal and instead only narrated the reasoning given by the Lower authorities. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the 3 petitioner would submit that, this writ petition deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 3. 2. Though this Court issued notices to the respondents as back as on 17-07-2009, no reply is filed on behalf of respondent No. 3. We have perused the impugned judgment and order in appeal passed by the respondent No. 3, and we are of the considered opinion that, the impugned judgment and order is passed by the Appellate authority without recording its own reason in particular dealing with the grounds of challenge to the view framed by the competent authority. Therefore, the same is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order passed by the respondent No. 3 is quashed and set aside and matter is remitted back to the respondent No. 3. The appeal is restored to its original file, the petitioner is relegated to appear before the Appellate authority on 02-03-2010, and after hearing the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 shall pass appropriate orders in 4 accordance with law by recording the reasons in the context of grounds urged before it. We direct the respondent No. 3 to hear and finally dispose of the appeal within six months from today. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. The Civil Application if any stands disposed of in view of the disposal of the main Writ Petition. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ] SDM* WP3483.09