:1: bgp bgp bgp IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.1406 OF 2008 NO.1406 OF 2008 NO.1406 OF 2008 1. Shamrao Janardhan Raskar Age-40 yrs., Occu : Service, residing at Boriandi, Tq.Daund, Dist.Pune. 2. Mis.Ranjana Maruti Nevase, Age - 35 yrs., Occu : Service, residing at Boriandi, Tq.Daund, Dist.Pune. ..Petitioners Vs. 1. State of Maharashtra 2. Director of Education Maharashtra State, Central Building, Pune. 3. Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Pune. 4. Shreenath Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Boriandi, Tq.Daund, Dist.Pune. 5. The Director of Education Secondary and Higher Secondary, Maharashtra State, Pune, Central Building, Pune. ..Respondents Mr.A.M.Joshi for petitioners. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 6. Ms.Lalita Panchakshari for respondent No.4. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & :- V.C.DAGA & :- V.C.DAGA & MRS.MRIDULA MRS.MRIDULA MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. BHATKAR,JJ. BHATKAR,JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 16TH MARCH,2009 : 16TH MARCH,2009 : 16TH MARCH,2009 JUDGMENT JUDGMENT JUDGMENT (PER : V.C.DAGA,J.) (PER : V.C.DAGA,J.) (PER : V.C.DAGA,J.) 1. On the motion made by learned Counsel for petitioner, petitioner is permitted to delete the name of respondent No.5 from array of parties. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. :2: 2. Heard. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP waives service on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 6 alongwith Ms.Lalita Panchakshari on behalf of respondent No.4. Heard finally by consent of parties. 3. During the pendency of this petition, by an order dated 16th June, 2008, Education Officer was directed to look into the matter and ensure that the education of the students does not suffer. It was also made clear that if the efforts to resolve dispute between two rival groups of the management fail to yield any results, respondents can take recourse for taking over the management in accordance with law. 4. During the course of hearing, we were informed that an Administrator has now been appointed by the Director of Education, who was expected to look after the interest of the educational institutions as well as the students taking education. At the same time, he was also expected to protect the interest of the teachers serving in the subject institution. 5. In view of the subsequent events mentioned above, we, by consent of parties quash and set aside the order of the Education Officer (Secondary) dated 29th March, 2007/30th March, 2007 with liberty to the Administrator to make fresh representation to the Education Officer )Pay and Provident Fund Unit), Pune, :3: within two weeks, similar to one on which impugned order was passed by the Education Officer. In the event of such representation, the Education Officer is expected to consider the same on its own merits within four weeks by a reasoned order following principles of natural justice keeping in mind the interest of students and teachers serving in the school. Needless to mention that all rival contentions on merits of the matter are kept open. 6. Rule is made absolute in terms of this order. No order as to costs. Learned AGP undertakes to communicate this order to all the concerned. (MRIDULA (MRIDULA (MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) BHATKAR,J.) BHATKAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)