W.P.No.11064 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.11064 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4700 OF 2011 Dattatraya s/o Bhanudasrao Suryawanshi, Age 40 years, Occu.Service, R/o Prakash Nagar (Kranti Nagar), Behind Shri Shrungare, Khadgaon road, Latur, Taluka and District Latur ..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. The Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Latur, District Latur 3. The Social Welfare Officer, Group-A, Zilla Parishad, Latur, District Latur 4. The Administrator, Marathwada Apang Sanghatna Sanchalit, Maher Ashtivyang Girls Residential High School, E-29, M.I.D.C. Latur, District Latur 5. The President, Marathwada Apang Sanghatna, P-67, M.I.D.C. Latur, District Latur 6. The Head Mistress, Maher Ashthivyang Girls Residential High School, E-29, M.I.D.C. Latur, District Latur W.P.No.11064 of 2010 2 7. Workshop Superintendent Marathwada Apang Training Institute, P-67, M.I.D.C. Latur, District Latur 8. Shivshankar s/o Tukaram Bansode, Age 27 years, Occu.Service, R/o Mazgenagar, Latur, Taluka and District Latur ..Respondents Mr S.B.Bhosale, Advocate for petitioner Mr K.J.Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 & 2 Mr S.S.Manale, Advocate for respondent No.3 Mr A.V.Patil, Advocate holding for Mr V.D.Gunale, Advocate for respondent No.4 Mr R.R.Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent No.7 Mr P.G.Rodge, Advocate for respondent No.8 Respondents 2, 5, 6 served CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 9th November 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard the respective Counsel extensively. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. In an appeal preferred by respondent No.8 Shivshankar Tukaram Bansode before the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, intervention application was moved by the writ petitioner asserting that he has interest in the claim, as raised by respondent No.8 Shivshankar and he should be W.P.No.11064 of 2010 3 heard as third party in the said appeal of respondent No.8 Shivshankar. The appeal of respondent No.8 Shivshankar, indeed was with prayer of releasing his salary from 21.12.2009 and to produce requisite documents before the appellate authority and to pass appropriate orders. The respondent No.2 (appellate authority), by order dated 12.11.2010 allowed the appeal of respondent No.8. However, divulged from the prayer referred to above. He set aside the stay granted by the Social Welfare Officer dated 15.5.2010 giving adverse effect to the order dated 31.3.2010 and directed release of salary in favour of respondent No.8. In the said order, a passing reference to the intervention application is made in clause 7 that the representation (intervention application) of writ petitioner Dattatraya cannot be considered. 4. Having read entire order under challenge, it is undisputed that no reasons are assigned by the said appellate authority i.e. respondent No.2 as to what made him to refuse the said intervention application. That apart, it was expected of respondent No.2 as an appellate authority to independently deal with application, as it deflates right of appeal or to make proper representation available to the writ petitioner. Not following such requisite procedure, indeed has squeezed rights, if any in favour of writ petitioner to challenge order on his intervention application. W.P.No.11064 of 2010 4 5. Several other issues are raised by the writ petitioner as to the incompetency of respondent No.8 to be appointed to the post on compassionate ground. When his wife is already in government employment, the resolution for appointing him on compassionate grounds has been moved by his step mother, in the capacity of Secretary. Learned Counsel also points that the institution is under the thumb of respondent No.8’s father as Chairman. All sort of illegalities are generated to effect personal benefits. 6. Mr Patil, appearing for respondent No.4 Administrator informs the illegalities surfaced in the administration of two institutions, which made the appropriate authorities for appointment of Administrator. Administrator has no role in the matter, he is acting as per the law. 7. The litigation between the parties has a chequered history and has passed through different stages. Without further dissecting to the assertions of the petitioner as to the incompetency of appointment of the respondent No.8 to the post of Hostel Superintendent on compassionate ground, the order of respondent No.2 is set aside, as he has to independently deal with the intervention application and answer the assertions raised by the intervenor (writ petitioner). It is well established, Reasons are held to be the heartbeat of every conclusion, apart from being an essential feature of principles of natural justice (Secretary and W.P.No.11064 of 2010 5 Curator Victoria Memorial Hall Vs. Howrah Ganatan Trik Nagarik Samiti and others, 2010 (3) SCC 732. The respondent No.2 is also at liberty to investigate competency of respondent No.8 to the post he has claimed, on compassionate ground. 8. With the above observations, writ petition is allowed to the extent as above. Civil Application also stands disposed of. Rule made absolute on the above terms. 9. Heard. Needless to indicate, if respondent No.8 is eligible and entitled to salary for services rendered, the Administrator will independently decide the same and dispose it in favour of respondent No. 8. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) (vvr/11064.10wp)