-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1668 OF 2010 and WRIT PETITION NO. 1766 OF 2010 Jivhala Society for mentally Handicapped & Anr. ..Petitioners. Versus The Dividional Social Welfare Officer, Pune Division, Pune & Others. ..Respondents. Appearance in both the Petitions : Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni a/w Mr. Mr. T. D. Deshmukh for the petitioners. Mr. Khairdi for respondent no.5. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for Respondent nos. 1 to 4 & 6. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : March 16, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Respondent no.5 in both these petitions were appointed as Special Teachers in Jivhalal School for Mentally Handicapped Children in the year 1994-1995. Their services came to be terminated by the petitioner–Trust. Mr. Kumbhakoni, however, disputed the termination of services of respondent no.5 in Writ Petition No. 1668 of 2010 stating that respondent no.5 in this petition has voluntarily resigned. 3. Respondent no.5 preferred appeals before respondent no.1 – srp -: 2 :- Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Pune, who is the authority to decide their appeal under the Handicap School Code. By the order dated 15/1/2010, respondent no.1 allowed the appeals filed by respondent no.5 in both the aforesaid writ petitions and therefore the Trust has approached this Court by way of these petitions. 4. Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the appeals are decided by one Mr. Umakant Kambale, the then Divisional Social Welfare Officer at Pune. He submitted that said Mr. Kambale was the elected Chairman of petitioner–Trust between 1993 to 1995. He also submitted that the order appointing respondent no.5 in both the petitions were issued by said Mr. Kambale only. It was lastly submitted by Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned counsel that this fact was pointed out to said Mr. Kambale with a request not to hear the matter, however, he proceed to hear matters and passed the impugned orders. 5. Mr. I. M. Khairdi, learned counsel for respondent no.5 does not dispute the fact that said Mr. Umakant Kambale was the President of Petitioner-Trust during the period 1993 to 1995 and the appointment orders of respondent no.5 are signed by him only. He however pointed out that the petitioner did not point out this fact to the said Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Pune and therefore he decided the appeals pursuant to orders of the -: 3 :- Commissioner. 6. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders, without going into merits thereof, deserve to be set aside on the only ground of bias. Mr. Khairdi, learned counsel for respondent no.5 fairly conceded to set aside the impugned orders and remanding the matter back to the Divisional Social Welfare Officer of another District. 7. In view of the concession given by respondent no.5, I dispose off both the writ petitions by passing following order. -: O R D E R :- (I) The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. (II) The matters are remanded back for afresh hearing and decision. However, instead of respondent no.1, the said appeals of respondent No.5 shall be heard and decided by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer at Latur. (III) The Office of the Divisional Social Welfare Officer at Pune shall forward all the papers and proceedings of the appeals of respondent no.5 to the Divisional Social Welfare Officer at Latur within the period of three weeks from today. (III) Divisional Social Welfare Officer at Latur shall hear and -: 4 :- decide the appeals of respondent no.5 as expeditiously as possible and in any case within the period of nine weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (IV) It is made clear that I have not gone into merits of the case and all the points and contentions of the respective parties are kept open. (RANJIT MORE, J.)