IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION VPH WRIT PETITION No.5009 OF 2008 Hilal Abbas Mulani Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar, for the petitioner. Mr. S. D. Rayrikar, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. C. G. Gavnekar, for respondent Nos. 4 to 8. CORAM : Dr. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATED : 21st, November 2008. P.C. . Rule, by consent of the counsel made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for the Respondents waive srvice. With the consent of counsel & at their request taken up for hearing & final disposal. . The Education Officer was moved for determining a question on interse seniority under Rule 12 of the M.E.P.S. Rules 1981. The dispute relates to the seniority of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 8 who are Assistant Teachers. The Education Officer passed an order on 3rd May 2008 ( Exhibit "E" to the petition). - 2 - 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Education Officer was not present when the hearing took place and that instead of the Education Officer, the Office Superintendent heard the representations, made by the complainants. 3. In the affidavit-in-reply which has been filed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Raigad Zilla Parishad, it has been admitted that the actual hearing was not given by the Education Officer himself but by the Superintendent in his office. The Education Officer states that a hearing was scheduled on 10th March 2008, but since he had certain other official work, he instructed his Office Superintendent to take the statements of the parties and that accordingly the Superintendent followed the direction. The conduct of the Education Officer is improper and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Education Officer could not have delegated the duty of hearing the parties to his Office Superintendent. Evidently, the Education Officer is not even aware of the basic principles that relate to the functioning of a quasi judicial authority. The Dy. Director of Education is directed to take note of the behaviour of the Education Officer and take necessary steps to ensure that such lapses do not occur in future. - 3 - 4. In so far as the petition is concerned, there is merit in the submission that the impugned order of the Education Officer will have to be quashed and set aside since it is not the Education Officer but his Office Superintendent who furnished a hearing on the issue of interse seniority. The order of the Education Officer shows that he has not applied his mind to the documentary material on record or to the provisions of law. 5. The impugned order is accordingly quashed and set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the Education Officer on 1st December, 2008 at 11 a.m. The Education Officer is directed to re-determine the issue of seniority under Rule 12 of the M.E.P.S. Act and pass a reasoned order after hearing the parties. The petition shall accordingly stand disposed of. 6. One other aspect of the case that warrants this Court taking serious note, is that in the affidavit in reply that has been filed by the Education Officer there is an annexure (the source or the authority of which is not disclosed) which contains a statment to the effect that though the High Court has issued directions in regard to the manner in which a seniority list should be - 4 - prepared, the functioning of the School depends upon the directions of the State Government and not on the decisions of the High Court. Since the Education Officer has annexed this document in his reply, it is only to be presumed that he sought to place reliance on it. This aspect of the matter is serious in its nature which would warrant calling explanation from the Education Officer. 7. The office is directed to issue a notice to Mr. Vinayak R. Jadhav, Education Officer (Secondary) Raigad Zilla Parishad, at Alibag, District Raigad calling upon him to show-cause as to why appropriate steps should not be taken against him in accordance with law for filing the aforementioned document in his affidavit-in-reply, referred to above, at page 47 of the paper book. The notice shall be made returnable on 8th December, 2008. The Education Officer shall personally remain present before the Court on the next date of hearing. Sd/- [ Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]