1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9768 OF 2009 Shri.Sanjay Appasaheb Chougule ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, School Education Department & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Narendra V.Bandiwadekar for Petitioner. Mr.S.N.Patil, A.G.P. for Respondents 1 to 3. MrJ.Shekhar i/b M/s.J.Shekhar & Co. for Respondent No.6. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATED:- APRIL 22, 2010. P.C. 1. Leave to amend to delete Article 227 of the Constitution of India from the cause title and body of the Writ Petition as prayed for granted. Amendment be carried out in the course of the day. 2. Heard Counsel for the parties. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr.Sonawane, A.G.P. waives notice for Respondents 1 and 2. 2 4. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 5. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order Exhibit K dated 29th August 2009 passed by the Respondent No.2 whereby he has confirmed the order Exhibit F dated 12th February 2009 passed by Respondent No.3. The Petitioner is praying for further relief to declare that the appointment of Petitioner as Shikshan Sevak in Respondent No.5 school made under order Exhibit D dated 29th September 2008 is legal and valid and to direct the Respondents 2 and 3 to grant approval to the said appointment and release grant in-aid in favour of Respondent No.5 for payment of honorarium to the Petitioner from month of September 2008 onwards. 6. For the nature of order that we propose to pass, it may not be necessary to burden this Order with all the factual matrix of the case. Suffice it to observe that the grievance of the Petitioner in this Petition is that the Respondent No.3 as well as Respondent No.2 has passed orders which are impugned in this Petition without issuing notice to the Petitioner 3 even though the same are adverse to the Petitioner. The fact that no notice was issued to the Petitioner before the impugned decision was taken, is not countered in the reply filed before us. 7. If it is so, instead of examining the merits of the controversy for the first time in this Petition, we would relegate the parties before the Respondent No.3 who shall reexamine and decide the matter afresh on its own merits in accordance with law, keeping in mind all the contentious issues to be raised by either party. 8. Needless to observe that the Respondent No.3 shall give fair opportunity to all concerned before passing any final order with regard to the subject matter in issue. Accordingly, we allow this Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned decisions and relegating the parties before the Respondent No.3 for taking fresh decision in accordance with law on its own merits. All questions are left open. The Respondent No.3 shall take final decision as expeditiously as possible and in any case, not later than three months from today. 4 9. Parties shall appear in the Office of the Respondent No.3 at 11.00 a.m. On 29th April 2010. 10. Petition disposed of on the above terms. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)