Bombay High Court
Akshya Balaji Chitale vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 1 August, 2024
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2024:BHC-AUG:16559-DB
972.WP.8086.24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.8086 OF 2024
Akshya s/o Balaji Chitale ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
School Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
through its secretary
2. Grievance Redressal Committee
Latur Division, Latur
through its chairman
3. The Deputy Director of Education
Latur Division, Latur
4. The Secretary,
Lokjagruti Shikshan Shanstha,
Valandi, Tq. Devni, Dist. Latur
5. The Principal,
Vivek Vardhini Higher Secondary
School Devni, Tq. Devni, Dist. Latur ... RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Dr. Godbole R.J.
AGP for Respondents: Mr. P.P. Dawalkar
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 01.08.2024
ORDER (PER : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) :
Issue notice to the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Learned AGP
waives service for respondents - State.
2. Heard both the sides finally.
972.WP.8086.24.odt
3. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 13.03.2024
passed by respondent No.3 - Deputy Director of Education and the order
dated 19.04.2024 passed by the appellate forum that is a committee
constitute under the Government Resolution dated 07.03.2024. The trial
authority as well as the appellate authority rejected the proposal only on
the ground that there was non-compliance of Government Resolution
dated 23.06.2017.
4. The petitioner was appointed in the respondent -
Management as he was belonging to scheduled tribe category, vide order
dated 05.01.2024. Thereafter, the proposal was forwarded to the
respondent No.3 - Deputy Director of Education. The proposal was
rejected on the ground that there was non-compliance of Government
Resolution dated 23.06.2017. It reveals that no objective scrutiny of the
proposal was made by respondent No.2. Being aggrieved the petitioner
preferred appeal before respondent No.2 - Committee. The Committee
also confirmed the order without examining the manner of appointment
of the petitioner.
5. We have been consistently taking view, following our
judgment in Shaikh Jaweria Khadarsab Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
Ors.; W.P. No.13150/2022 dated 10.06.2024 that the proposal seeking
approval for the appointment cannot be rejected without conducting
objective scrutiny, solely on the ground of non-compliance of Government
Resolution dated 23.06.2017. The same view was reiterated in the
972.WP.8086.24.odt
matter of Lalit Sureshrao Shinde Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.;
W.P. No.10270/2019 dated 15.10.2019.
6. The respondent No.3 - Deputy Director of Education is under
obligation to examine the proposal. The petitioner is coming with the
case that his appointment was through reservation. Therefore, it needs
to be taken into account the law laid down by division bench in the
matter of Monali Vinodrao Bhuyar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.;
W.P.4344/2022. Other factors showing the appointments the manner in
which the petitioner came to be appointed also needs to be considered by
the said authority. We, therefore, dispose of this petition by directing the
respondent No.3 to examine the proposal afresh.
7. The impugned orders passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3
are quashed and set aside. The respondent No.3 - Deputy Director of
Education shall reconsider the proposal of the petitioner on its own
merits considering the policies and the law laid down in the above
referred matters. The decision shall be taken within a period of four
weeks from today. However, the proposal shall not be rejected on
selfsame ground mentioned in the present impugned communication.
The writ petition is disposed of.
(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
habeeb
