1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1446 OF 2011 (Smt. Chandrika N. Rangari vs. Dy. Director of Education & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. AUGUST 26, 2011. Heard finally with the consent of Shri Sundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Deshpande, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Ms. Pathak, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4. The challenge is to the order dated 27.10.2009 whereby the approval given to services of the petitioner on 13.05.2008 has been cancelled. By order dated 13.05.2008, her services from 01.08.1995 till 31.03.2003 were also approved. The other order challenged in this petition is dated 03.02.2009 and by said order, it has been communicated to Head Mistress of the School that the services of the petitioner on No Grant Basis were recognized and ex-post facto sanction was erroneously granted. As the service was on permanent No Grant Basis, it could not have been so recognized. Shri Sundaram, learned counsel contends that this finding that service rendered was in a School 2 which was being run on Permanent No Grant Basis is factually incorrect and he tried to substantiate his contention. In the alternative, he also states that the impugned order dated 27.10.2009 and 03.02.2009 are both passed without extending any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Mrs. Deshpande, learned AGP as also Ms. Pathak, learned counsel are supporting the impugned orders. They pointed out that on 11.07.2003 itself approval was given to the petitioner for a period from 01.04.2003 onwards and that approval was never questioned. In other words, contention is, service prior to 01.04.2003 was then not recognized and that non recognition was never assailed by the petitioner. After hearing respective counsel, we find that it is the management who has forwarded proposal vide No. 333 of 2007 dated 19.11.2007 to the Education Department and that proposal was accepted by the department on 13.05.2008. Thereafter the services rendered by the petitioner prior to 01.04.2003 i.e. between 01.08.1995 to 31.03.2003 were also recognized and approved. It appears that while cancelling this recognition accorded vide order dated 13.05.2008, the petitioner was not heard. Both the orders dated 27.10.2009 and 03.02.2009 are passed behind her back. In this situation, it is not necessary for us to resolve factual dispute whether the School then was on No Grant Basis or Permanent No Grant Basis. The issue 3 can be looked into by the Education Officer after extending an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and Respondents No. 3 & 4. Only for said purpose and without observing anything on merits of the matter, the orders dated 27.10.2009 and 03.02.2009 passed by Respondent No. 2 – Education Officer are hereby quashed and set aside. The Education Officer to hear the petitioner and to Respondents No. 3 & 4 and take fresh decision in this respect as early as possible and in any case within a period of four weeks after the parties appear before him. The parties are directed to appear before Respondent No. 2 – Education Officer on 30th August 2011 and to abide by his further instructions in the matter. Thus, writ petition is partly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.