1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8595 OF 2009 Sukhlal Dhudku Ahire ..Petitioner V/s The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.R.S.Kate for the Petitioner. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE: 16th November, 2009. P.C.: 1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the communication issued by Respondent No.2 to Respondent No.4 in the matter of seniority list most specifically in category “C”. It is the case of the petitioner that he was the permanent teacher in “C” category from 2.8.1980 whereas as per the communication he is to be considered after 1990. It is the grievance of the petitioner that before issuing such a direction he was not heard. On behalf of Respondent Nos.1 & 2 learned counsel submits that this is not the 2 direction but the nature of guidelines. 3. According to us even if the communication is considered as guideline it is bound to have effect on the civil right of the petitioner. Perusal of the communication would show that in fact it is a direction. As the petitioner was not heard before the management was asked to finalise the seniority list in terms of the directions, we pass the following order. (i) The impugned communication dated 25.8.2009 is set aside. (ii) Respondent No.2 is directed, after hearing the petitioner and other teachers and the school management, to take an appropriate decision as to the seniority of the teachers or alternatively ask the management to submit fresh seniority list and after hearing the affected teachers pass necessary orders on the said seniority list. 4. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.)