1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3983/2009. ( Ku. Usha Pralhadrao Khadse . -: versus :- State of Maharashtra 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 : JANUARY 11, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri Anjan De, learned counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3, Shri A.S. Kilor, learned Counsel for respondent no.5 and Shri S.K. Sable, learned counsel for respondent no.4. Petitioner is admittedly headmistress and financial and administrative powers are taken away by the impugned order from her and given to respondent no.5. This Court has on 6.11.2009, granted status quo in the matter. Contention of Shri De, learned counsel for petitioner is that, the orders have been passed without hearing and though the order of status quo was within the knowledge of the Education Officer, again similar order for further period from January, 2010 to March, 2010 has been passed by the respondent no.2 Education Officer. 2 Shri Kilor with Shri Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent contends that by resolution of majority, petitioner is already suspended. They further state that as there were various complaints, the powers have been rightly taken away from the petitioner. Learned A.G.P. relies upon the affidavit filed on 16.12.2009 by the respondent no.3 / Deputy Director of Education. The Deputy Director of Education has mentioned that the petitioner is headmistress and administrative and financial powers given to her were sought to be withdrawn by the education officer vide order dated 15.07.2009. However, the Education Officer canceled the said order on 11.08.2009 and again passed similar order on 18.08.2009. He also states that the petitioner was not heard before passing this order. There may be complaints against the petitioner, but when she is headmistress, if any of her powers are sought to be removed and given to some other person, as per respondent no.3 the Deputy Director of Education, petitioner ought to have been heard. Shri De, leaned counsel is making some allegations about malafides against the Education Officer and Shri Kilor is pressing resolution pointing out suspension of petitioner. It is not necessary for this Court to look into those controversy. The matter can be looked into by the competent Authority in this respect. It is clear that impugned order and act in breach of principles of natural justice is unsustainable. In view of the allegations made against respondent no.2 and upon request of Shri De, the respondent no.3 Deputy Director of Education is directed to hear all 3 concern and to pass appropriate orders in the matter, as early as possible and in any case by 30.01.2010. Parties to appear before respondent no.3 on 20.01.2010 and to abide by his further instructions in the matter. Subject to this impugned order dated 01.09.2009 and all subsequent orders passed by the Education Officer, are quashed and set aside. Rule accordingly. Writ Petition is allowed in aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.