Bombay High Court
SANJIV SITARAM MOREversusSANGITA SURESH SUTAR
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The order dated 1 October 2025 is quashed and the matter is remitted to the Education Officer for a fresh decision after granting a hearing to the parties.
Summary
The petitioner, Sangita Suresh Sutar, challenged an order dated 1 October 2025 whereby the Education Officer decided seniority and appointed Respondent No.3 as school supervisor without issuing any notice or granting a hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner argued that this violated the principles of natural justice and sought quashing of the order and a fresh hearing. The respondents contended that notice had been served and the appointment was already effected, arguing that the interim order preventing issuance of the appointment letter was no longer applicable. The Court examined the impugned order and found no reference to any service of notice or hearing, concluding that a clear breach of natural justice occurred. Consequently, the Court quashed the order, remitted the matter to the Education Officer for a fresh decision after hearing both parties, and upheld the interim relief pending such adjudication.
Issues considered
- Whether the Education Officer's decision on seniority and appointment without notice or hearing violates the principles of natural justice.
- Whether the impugned order should be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.
- Whether the interim relief staying the appointment remains in force pending fresh adjudication.
Subjects
- natural justice
- right to hearing
- seniority dispute
- appointment
- quash order
- interim relief
Judgment
2026:BHC-KOL:8761-DB
31-WP-11735-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11735 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 173 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 11735 OF 2025
Sanjiv Sitaram More ...Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Sangita Suresh Sutar ...Petitioner
Versus
Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad And Ors ...Respondents
——————
Mr. Prashant Bhavake (through VC), for the Applicant.
Adv. I.M.Khairdi a/w Mr. Somnath Thengal, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Santosh Jadhav,”B” Panel counsel, for the Respondent-State.
——————
Coram : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
Date : SEPTEMBER 10, 2026
P. C. :
1. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave to
delete the name of the Education Officer. Leave is granted. Amendment
to be carried out forthwith. Re-verification is dispensed with.
2. By the present Petition, the challenge is to the order dated 1 st
October, 2025, by which the decision on seniority was taken by the
Education Officer without granting opportunity of hearing to the
Arya Chavan 1 of 3
31-WP-11735-2025.doc
Petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner points out the impugned order
and would submit that no notice was issued to the Petitioner. He would
further submit that the impugned order was passed without hearing the
Petitioner, and the consequential actions taken by the management are
required to be stayed. He would submit that as hearing has not been
granted to the Petitioner, the impugned order be quashed and set
aside, and the complaint be remitted to the file of the Education Officer
to be decided afresh.
4. Per contra, Mr. Bhavake, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3
would submit that the Petitioner was served with notice, however, has
not appeared, and therefore, the Education Officer decided the
seniority issue after hearing the Respondent No. 3. He would submit
that subsequently, the Respondent No. 3 has been promoted, and that
the interim order passed by this Court on 2nd December, 2025 directing
not to issue appointment letter to the Respondent No. 3 as supervisor
of the school is non est. He submits that as Respondent No. 3 has
already been appointed, his appointment should not be disturbed.
5. We have perused the impugned order dated 1st October, 2025.
6. On a complaint dated 22nd September, 2025, the Education Officer
has decided the seniority, by reason of which Respondent No. 3 was
appointed as the supervisor of the school. Though, it is sought to be
Arya Chavan 2 of 3
31-WP-11735-2025.doc
contended that the Petitioner was duly served, we find no mention in
the impugned order of any service of notice upon the Petitioner or any
hearing being granted to the Petitioner.
7. As there is an apparent violation of the principles of natural
justice, without going into the merits of the matter, we are inclined to
quash and set aside the impugned order dated 1 st October, 2025 and
remit the issue to the Education Officer to be considered afresh after
granting an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and Respondent
No 3. The parties to appear before the Education Officer on 21 st
September, 2026 at 11:30 a.m. No further notice of the hearing to be
given. The Education Officer to hear the parties and pass decision afresh
expeditiously, and in any event, on or before 30th September, 2026.
8. Till the adjudication by the Education Officer, interim relief
granted by this Court to continue.
9. The Petition is allowed in the above terms.
10. Interim Application does not survive for consideration and stands
disposed of.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]
Arya Chavan 3 of 3
Checking your session…