Artee Sudarshan Adhav vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 5849 Bom

                                            {1}
                                                                      wp 5009.16.odt

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                            
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              WRIT PETITION NO.5009 OF 2016




                                                    
     Artee d/o Sudarshan Adhav,
     Age: 46 years, occu: service,
     R/o C/o Anil Shankarrao Shelke




                                                   
     17, Giriraj Vihar, Maldad Road (East)
     Sangamner 422 605, Dist. Ahmednagar                                  Petitioner




                                         
              Versus


     1
                             
              The State of Maharashtra,
              through the Principal Secretary to
                            
              School Education Department,
              Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
      

     2        Education Officer (Secondary)
              Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar
   



     3        Sahyadri Bahujan Vidya Prasarak Samaj,
              A/P. Tq. Sangamner,





              Dist. Ahmednagar, through Its Secretary                 Respondents

Mr.S.T. Shelke advocate for the petitioner Mr.S.S.Dande, Assistant Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.1 & 2 Mr.Shaikh W. Ahmed advocate for respondent No.3

_______________

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & V.K. JADHAV, JJ

(Date : 4th October, 2016.)

{2} wp 5009.16.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: R.M. Borde, J)

1 Heard.

2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up

for final decision at admission stage.

3 The petitioner is objecting to the order passed by the

Education Officer - Secondary on 5.4.2016, rejecting the proposal

of the Management for according approval to the appointment of

the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher.

4 The proposal tendered by the Management has been turned

down on account of failure to tender certain information /

documents. An affidavit in reply has been presented on behalf of

the Management; wherein it has been stated that, necessary

compliance would be made within two weeks. In this view of the

matter, the Education Officer needs to be directed to reconsider

the proposal of the Management for granting approval to the

appointment of the petitioner, on compliance of necessary

deficiencies, as pointed out by the Education Officer in the

impugned order.

5 The Education Officer is, thus, directed to reconsider the

proposal of the Management for granting approval to the

{3} wp 5009.16.odt

appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher, subject to

compliance of deficiencies by the management, as expeditiously

as possible and preferably within a period of three months from

today. The order passed by the Education Officer - secondary

rejecting the proposal of the Management dated 5.4.2015 shall

not be an impediment for reconsideration of the said proposal and

the Education Officer - secondary is expected to take decision

denovo in accordance with the Rules & Regulations within the time

stipulated above.

6 Rule is accordingly made absolute.

7 There shall be no order as to costs.

                   (V.K. JADHAV, J)                  (R.M.BORDE, J)





     vbd