1 283011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2830 OF 2011 Shraddha Dattatray Patil ...Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. C.J. Sabnis for the Petitioner Mr. C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P., for Respondents No. 1 and 2 Mr. S.G. Kudle for Respondent No. 5 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND R.Y. GANOO, JJ. DATE: 16TH JUNE, 2011 P.C.:- Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. The learned A.G.P. for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Kudle, learned counsel, for respondent No. 5 waive service. The Rule is made returnable forthwith, by consent. 2 283011 3. Since short question is involved, the petition is taken up forthwith for final disposal, by consent. 4. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Thane, in 6/2008 dated 19th January, 2011, whereby the seniority position of the petitioner has been changed from the one which was given to the petitioner as per the Seniority List dated 6th September, 2010. The principal argument canvassed before us is that the impugned order dated 19th January, 2011 came to be passed by the Education Officer without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No notice whatsoever was given to the petitioner, although the seniority position of the petitioner was to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings before the Education Officer. The impugned order does indicate that hearing took place before the Education Officer; further, there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was given notice about the said proceedings decided by the Education Officer. On this count alone, the petitioner ought to succeed, and the parties will have to be relegated before the Education Officer for re-consideration of the issue afresh on its own merits, in accordance with law. 3 283011 5. The counsel for respondent No. 5 , however, submits that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending back the matter before the Education Officer, as the issue decided by the Education Officer is on the basis of the Government Resolutions dated 19th April, 1997 and 5th November, 2009, and which aspect has also been answered by this Court in the case of Vilasrao Sarjerao Patil v. Asarond Panchkroshi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Ors., reported in 2004 (4) Mh.L.J. 762. Whether the issue raised by the Petitioner is already covered by the G.Rs. or decided by the High Court is a matter which can be considered by the Education Officer. It is possible for the petitioner to persuade the Education Officer to take the view that the factual position, on the basis of which, the impugned order was passed, is incorrect. All those aspects can be decided by the Education Officer on its own merits. 6. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned decision at Exhibit ‘E’ to the petition, and, instead, relegate the parties before the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Thane, for re-consideration of the entire matter afresh on its own merits, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned, including the parties before this Court. Needless to observe that the Education Officer will decide the case afresh, without being 4 283011 influenced by his earlier decision in the matter or order passed by us today; and, further, that appropriate decision will be taken as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks from the receipt of copy of this order either from the petitioner or the Registry of this Court, whichever is earlier. 7. This petition is, accordingly, disposed of. R.Y. GANOO, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.