We
find that the petitions deserve to be allowed on short
ground that by the impugned order, Respondent
Education Officer has set aside the order passed by the
earlier Education Officer. As such, the impugned order
revokes the approval granted by the earlier order passed
by the predecessor in the office of the Respondent
Education Officer. By now, it is settled principle of law
that unless the power of review is specifically or by
necessary implication provided, the authority cannot
review its own order. No doubt, if an order is obtained by
exercising fraud, it would stand vitiated. However, it is
not the case of the Respondent- Education Officer that
Petitioners have obtained their initial orders by
fraudulent means. If the earlier Education Officer had
granted approval to the Petitioners' appointment, may be
erroneously, the same cannot be made a ground to recall
the same and pass contrary order, unless a case of fraud,
misrepresentation or suppression is made out.
Particularly when most of the Petitioners have already
put in their services for 11 years, the impugned orders
would amount to penalising them for no fault on their
part.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12234 OF 2016
Vikrant Prataprao Gaikwad Vs The State of Maharashtra
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE,
V. G. BISHT, JJ
DATE : 28th February 2020
JUDGMENT :- (S. S. SHINDE, J.)
Citation: 2021(2) MHLJ 316
