1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5298 OF 2008 1. Arun Shriram Patil, age 42 yrs, occ. Service. 2- Gopal Vinayak Narkhede, age 40 yrs, occ. Service. 3- Sau. Ranjana Pradeep Nehete, age 35 yrs, occ. Service. 4- Sau. Nita Bharat Patil, age 40 yrs, occ. Service. 5- Vijaykumar Kashinath More, age 35 yrs, occ. Service. 6- Anil Yashwant Shingane, age 34 yrs, occ. Service. 7- Sau. Gunvanti Sunil Patil, age 35 yrs, occ. Service. All r/o Salve English School Salve, Tq. Dharangaon, Dist. Jalgaon. ..PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1- The State of Maharashtra, (Through its Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.) (Copy to be served through Government pleader, High Court of Bombay at Bombay) 2- The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. 3- Sau. Komal w/o Dnyandeo Kohle, @ Ku. Nirasha d/o Ganpat Kolambe, age 41 yrs, occ. Service, 2 r/o Pimprala Shinde Nagar, Plot no.11, Gat No.2, Jalgaon Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. 4. Gram Sudharna Mandal, Salve Taluka Dharangaon, Dist Jalgaon Through its President. 5- The Head Master, Salve English School, Salve Taluka Dharangaon, Dist. Jalgaon. ..RESPONDENTS. Shri A.G. Talhar, Advocate for the petitioners Shri S.D. Kaldate, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents. 1 and 2 Shri S.R. Barlinge for respondent No.3. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J : DATE : 6th JULY, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2- By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order vide which the seniority list of the teachers working with respondent No.5 has been re- determined as per the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.1275/2008 dated 04.03.2008. 3- The respondent No.3 herein was declared to be surplus and as such, she filed a petition before this Court claiming that she was senior to the present petitioner and as such she could not have been declared as surplus. This Court vide order passed in the aforesaid writ petition (cited supra) directed the Education Officer to re-determine the seniority on the basis of the application filed by the respondent No.3. However, this Court had directed that Education Officer should invite to participate and give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the persons likely to be effected. 4- The respondent No.2 Education Officer in accordance with the 3 aforesaid directions re-determined the seniority vide order impugned herein. The respondent No.2 found that the seniority given to the respondent No.3 herein was incorrect and that she ought to have been shown at serial no.12. From the record it appears that the seniority has been determined by the respondent No.2, Education Officer on the basis of the initial entry into service of the employee and qualification possessed by them at the time of their entry in service. 5- However, the grievance of the petitioner is that, the petitioners were not given an invitation by the respondent No. 2 Education Officer and were also not given an opportunity of hearing. The respondent No.2 was bound to invite the present petitioners since it was directed by this Court. On this technical ground, the petition is required to be allowed. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 27.05.2008 is quashed and set aside. The respondent No.2 is directed to give hearing afresh to the present petitioners, the respondent No.3 herein , the respondent No.4 Management and respondent No.5 Head Master. The present petitioners so also the respondent No.3 are directed to remain present before the respondent No.2 on 20 th of July, 2009 on which date the respondent No.2 shall hear the present petitioners, respondent No.3 and respondents No.4 and 5. 6- Since the date is fixed by this Court, no further invitation is necessary to the present petitioner to participate in the proceedings before the respondent No.2. 7- Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. 8- Authenticated copy be supplied to the Learned Assistant Government Pleader. ( B. R. GAVAI, J. ) aaa/5298.08 ***