1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5654 OF 2010 (Prakash S. Gujar vs. The 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 : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : APRIL 20, 2011 Heard Shri Kilor, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 to 4, Shri Deopujari, learned Counsel for the respondent no.5, and Shri Quazi, learned Counsel for the respondent no.6. The petition is directed against the communication dated 27/9/2010 issued by the respondent no.1 to the respondent no.5 Municipal Council whereby Municipal Council is directed to appoint senior-most Urdu Medium Teacher as Head Master of Urdu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Paratwada. 2 Shri Kilor, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner is senior-most Teacher and In-charge Head Master of the said School and the petitioner has challenged the said communication on the ground that the respondent no.1 State Government does not have jurisdiction, power and authority to issue the impugned communication dated 27/9/2010 to the Municipal Council and in absence of power, the said communication is bad in law. Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader, on the basis of instructions received from the State Government vide communication dated 15/3/2011, has made a statement that the impugned communication dated 27/9/2010 has been stayed by the State Government and the issue will be re-considered by the State Government by following principles of natural justice. In view of the categorical statement made by Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader, we do not propose to keep the petition pending in this Court. However, the State 3 Government shall re-consider the issue by following principles of natural justice within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. Shri Kilor, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that in case decision of the State Government is adverse to the petitioner, direction may be given to the State Government not to give effect to the said decision for a period of one week. Normally, we would not have granted this request. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice, we direct the State Government that if decision is adverse to the petitioner, same shall not be given effect for a period of one week form the date of communication of such decision. Such protection shall cease to operate automatically after expiry of one week from the date of communication of such decision. With the above observations and directions, the petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE khj 4