1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 321/2010 Bhagwat Sonuji Uparikar -: versus :- Education Officer [Secondary} and others. 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, J. DATED : APRIL 5, 2010. Heard Shri A.Z. Jibhkate, learned Counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1, Shri I.N. Choudhari, learned Counsel for respondent no.2, Shri P.S. Tembhre, learned Counsel for respondent no.3 and Shri Kapgate, learned Counsel for respondent no.4. Respondent no.4 is the Education Officer in person and by designation she has been joined as respondent no.1. Short grievance of Shri Jibhkate, learned counsel for petitioner is that by orders dated 04.03.2002 in Writ Petition No.2966/2001 Division Bench of this Court directed Deputy Director of Education to decide the grievance of petitioner in relation to the order dated 04.07.2001 then impugned. He states that by said order the additional charge was given to present respondent no.3 ignoring the seniority of petitioner and hence that Writ Petition was filed. According to him, as the education officer was party 2 respondent, the Division Bench thought it proper to issue direction to the Deputy Director of Education. Accordingly on 03.06.2002 the Deputy Director of Education passed order holding petitioner to be senior to respondent no.3 and that order was not challenged by any body and has attained finality. Ignoring this order, respondent no.1 has again on 23.12.2009 passed a fresh order holding respondent no.3 to be senior to petitioner. According to him, respondent no.1/4 does not possess such jurisdiction and the action is in violation of directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court. Learned AGP for respondent no.1 in her official capacity and Shri Kapgate, learned counsel for said respondent in her personal capacity has contended that the controversy in Writ Petition No. 2966/2001 was limited because petitioner gave up other relief sought in it and hence the Deputy Director of Education was required to look into the question only for grant of additional charge. The issue of seniority did not arise for adjudication before the Deputy Director. According to them, order dated 03.06.2002 passed by the Deputy Director therefore does not prohibit respondent no.1 Education Officer from exercising the statutory authority under Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private (conditions of service) Rules, 1981. They contend that the perusal of impugned order dated 23.12.2009 shows application of mind to facts necessary for determination of the seniority, while the order dated 03.06.2002 does not consider all those facts. Shri Tembhare, learned counsel for respondent no.3 adopts the arguments of Shri Kaptage and learned AGP 3 and states that purpose of order dated 03.06.2002 was only to find out who should be given additional charge. Shri Jibhkate, learned counsel in reply has tried to explain the purport of order dated 03.06.2002. He further states that in any case the impugned order dated 23.12.2009 does not make mention to these arguments which are advanced for the first time before this Court. Facts clearly show that the impugned order dated 23.12.2009 is not passed on clean slate. It has background of direction of this Court in Writ Petition No.2966/2001 and of order of Deputy Director dated 03.06.2002. Ignoring those directions and order of Deputy Director an exercise to ascertain the seniority could not have been undertaken. The said order dated 23.12.2009 does not give any reason in respect of contentions raised by respective counsel before this Court for its consideration. The order is therefore sought to be supported by reasons not appearing therein. In this situation, as I find that the order dated 23.12.2009 ought to have revealed consideration of the earlier directions dated 03.06.2002 issued by the Deputy Director and also the directions of the Division Bench of this Court, the said order is quashed and set aside. All contentions of respective learned counsel are kept open. The contentions of petitioner that respondent no.1 does not possess such jurisdiction and she cannot substitute the directions of Deputy Director of Education dated 03.06.2002, is also kept open for consideration. Respondent no.1 shall hear the respective parties and pass fresh orders in accordance with law as early as possible and in any case by 15.06.2010. Parties shall appear before respondent no.1 for 4 said purpose on 28.04.2010 and to abide by her further directions in the matter. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed. Rule accordingly, however, in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.