FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 694/2007 (Vasant Seshrao Salar and others vs. State of Mah. and others) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Shri R.S.Parsodkar Adv. for petitioners. Shri P.D.Kothari, A.G.P. for R-1 to 4 Shri V.M.Deshpande, Adv. for R-5 to 8 Shri S.S.Shigane, Adv. for intervenor CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR AND S.R.DONGAONKAR, JJ DATED : 10 th JUNE, 2008. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the relevant material on record. As short question is involved, we proceed to dispose of this petition finally at the admission stage, by consent of the parties. Learned A.G.P. waives notice for R-1 to 4. Shri V.M.Deshpande, Advocate, waives notice for R- 5 to 7. In addition to respondents, there is one application filed by Suresh Shaligramji Rajgure for intervention. Shri S.S.Shingane for the said applicant has also been heard. For the nature of order that we propose to pass, it is not necessary to advert to the factual matrix of the case. Suffice it to observe that the grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of the order of regularization of their service dated 5.12.2007 (at page 75) and approval order dated 12th May, 2006 (at page 84) and dated 30th March, 2006 (at page 77), issued by the appropriate authority, the Commissioner, Tribal Development, M.S. Nashik, proceeded to issue direction to cancel the appointment of the petitioners for the reasons recorded in his order dated 26th September, 2006. Without going into the other issues raised on behalf of the petitioners, we are of the opinion that the order impugned in this writ petition, passed by the Commissioner of Tribal Development cannot be allowed to stand, atleast for two reasons. The first reason is that, it is not in dispute that the Commissioner proceeded to pass the said order without issuing notice to the petitioners and/or giving them fair opportunity to represent their point of view. On this count alone, the order will have to be set aside being hit by principles of natural justice. The second reason which has impressed us is that, in the entire decision of the Commissioner, which is impugned in this petition, no reference is made to fact that already an order of regularization has been issued in favour of the petitioners on 5th December, 2005 and their appointment has been approved vide order dated 12th May, 2006 and 30th March, 2006 by the appropriate authority. The Commissioner has proceeded to consider all other matter except the said relevant fact. As aforesaid, on these two counts, the order which is impugned in this petition does not stand the test of judicial scrutiny. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Tribal Development, Nashik, dated 26th September, 2006 (Annexure 22 to the writ petition). Instead, we relegate the petitioners before the Commissioner, who in turn shall give them fair opportunity before reconsidering the entire mater if so advised. The petitioners shall appear before the Commissioner in his office on 1st July, 2008 at 11 a.m. on which date the Commissioner shall permit the petitioners to submit their reply in the context of the reasons for cancellation stated in the impugned order. In case, the Commissioner intends to record any other additional reason, shall give prior notice to the petitioner in that behalf, so as to afford them fair opportunity to file their response in that regard. On considering the reply and the material produced by the petitioners, as also the material produced by the applicant on whose representation, the impugned order came to be passed by the Commissioner, shall proceed to decide the matter on its own merits in accordance with the law uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned order. The petitioners may file their response with reference to the reasons recorded in the impugned order treating the said reasons as part of show cause notice already issued to the petitioner in terms of this order. It is once again made clear that the Commissioner shall decide the matter afresh uninfluenced by any of the observations in the impugned order. All questions are left open to be decided by the Commissioner afresh. The Commissioner shall decide the matter expeditiously and not later than 14th August, 2008. In view of the above order, the application for intervention is also disposed of. Writ petition stands disposed of on the above terms. JUDGE JUDGE Rvjalit