1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Miscellaneous Civil Application (Review) No. 103/2008 (Deepali Gopilal Lunge VERSUS The Education Officer (Secondary) Z.P. Amravati & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Mr. M.G. Bhangde, Senior counsel for the applicant. Mr. T.R. Kankale, Assistant Government Pleader for the R-1. CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE : APRIL 24, 2008. Heard. It is contended that the Writ Petition No.5768/2007 filed by the petitioner was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2007 on the basis of the statement made by the then Assistant Government Pleader that opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before revoking the approval granted to the appointment of the petitioner as Drawing Teacher. The learned Senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that the statement which was made by the then Assistant Government Pleader was incorrect, and in fact, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before cancelling the approval, and therefore, once again the respondents have 2 violated the principles of natural justice. However, these facts were not properly placed before this Court at the time of hearing of the Writ Petition No.5768/2007, and therefore, this Court dismissed the same. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 12.12.2007, in the circumstances of the present case, may be revoked and direction be given to the respondent to reconsider the issue of cancellation of approval of the petitioner afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Mr. Kankale, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, does not dispute the fact that the petitioner was not personally informed about the date of hearing of the matter before the Education Officer. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further contended that the Education Officer is ready and willing to reconsider the issue afresh. After considering the rival contentions as well as the facts mentioned hereinabove, it is evident that the applicant was not given an opportunity of hearing by the Education Officer before cancelling the approval. Similarly, in view of the statement made by the Assistant Government Pleader, the Education Officer is also ready and willing to reconsider the issue. 3 In the circumstances and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the order dated 12.12.2007 passed in Writ Petition No.5768/2007 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the order dated 10.07.2006 impugned in the said writ petition is also quashed and set aside. The Review Application is allowed with direction to the Education Officer to reconsider the issue of cancellation of approval of the petitioner as early as possible and beyond the period of four months from the date of communication of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. JUDGE JUDGE APTE