1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2838 OF 2009 1. Shri Mahadeo Shikshan Sanstha, Shambhu-Umberga Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur, through its President. 2- Shri Mahadeo Shikshan Sanstha, Shambhu-Umberga Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur through its Secretary. .PETITIONERS. V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2- The Director of Education, Secondary and Higher Secondary Maharashtra State, Pune. 3- The Deputy Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur. 4- Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Latur. 5- Nehru Yuva Manda, Shambhu Umberga Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur through its secretary (..Deleted..) ..RESPONDENTS. Shri A.V. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.D. Kaldate, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent 1- 4 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J : DATE : 9th JULY, 2009 PER COURT :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by 2 consent. 2- At the outset the learned counsel for petitioners submit that though they have preferred the revision, they would not press the same and as such same stands disposed off. Notice before admission was issued by this Court on 30th of April, 2009. Thereafter when the matter was listed on 12th of June, 2009 the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner sought leave to delete the respondent no.5. Matter was adjourned to 25th of June, 2009. On 25th of June, 2009 again time was sought by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, which was granted till today. Today again Learned Assistant Government Pleader makes a statement that inspite of various reminder, the instructions have not come from the authorities and therefore seeks further time. 3- The court is not expected to endlessly wait for the respondents to answer the notice issued. The Court would have taken a serious view against the authorities for not responding the notice issued. However since petition can be disposed of on short ground, I am not inclined to do so. 4- The petitioner challenges the order passed by the respondent No.2, Director of Education dated 02.02.2009 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner dated 17.06.2008 passed by the respondent No.3, thereby declaring that the standards of 5th to 7th in the school run by the petitioner society derecognised. 5- Shri A.V. Patil, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, order suffers from two vices. First is that appeal has been heard by the same officer who had passed the original order while occupying the office of Deputy Director of Education, Latur and second is that the appeal was heard by Shri Khatib who was the joint Director of Education and the order is passed by Shri M.R. Kadam who 3 was holds the office of Jt. Director of Education. 6- I am of the considered view that the order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. An authority who had passed the original order cannot sit in an appeal over his own order though while occupying a higher office. Allegations that the original order challenged in appeal was also heard by Shri Khatib has got unchallenged. I find that it is not permissible for Shri Khatib to hear an appeal, against an order which was passed by him while working as a Deputy Director. I am of the considered view that order suffers from official bias. 7- Secondly it is also settled law that a person who hears the matter shall only pass order. Here, Shri Khatib had heard the matter and Shri Kadam had passed the order. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow the petition and the impugned order dated 02.02.2009 is quashed and set aside. 8- Matter is remanded to the Director of Education. It is made clear that appeal shall not be heard by Shri Khatib. It is further made clear that the authority who hears the appeal shall himself decide the same. 9- The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the status quo granted by this Court the school is still running and same may be continued till disposal of the appeal. It is directed that the status quo order granted on 25.06.2009 shall continue till the decision of the appeal by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of three months from today. 10- Authenticated copy be supplied. ( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE aaa/wp2838.09.odt ...