Bombay High Court
Madhuri Kumar Darvan And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 5 August, 2024
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, M.M. Sathaye
2024:BHC-AS:31219-DB
54(2) WP-11778-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11778 OF 2022
Miss. Madhuri Kumar Darvan and Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
***
Mr. Satyajeet A. Rajeshirke, for Petitioner.
Ms. Dhruti Kapadia, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
***
CORAM: NITIN JAMDAR &
M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.
HUSENBASHA
RAHAMAN
NADAF
by HUSENBASHA
RAHAMAN
NADAF
DATE : 5 AUGUST 2024
Date: 2024.08.06
18:16:34 +0530
P.C.:
. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the
Petitioners, at the outset seeks leave to amend description of
Respondent No. 3 to replace word 'Kolhapur' with 'Sangli'. Leave
granted. Amendment to be carried out within a period of one week.
2. Petitioner No. 1 Employee working with Petitioner No. 3
School run by Petitioner No. 2 Education Institute are jointly
challenging the order dated 27 July 2022 passed by Respondent No.
3 / Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli. By said
impugned Order, the approval for appointment of Petitioner No. 1
as Laboratory Assistant is rejected.
3. Perused the impugned order. The only reason for rejecting the
proposal is the ban under Government Resolution (GR) dated 4 May
2020. It is an admitted position before us that the ban imposed by
54(2) WP-11778-2022.doc
the said GR was due to the situation brought about by Covid-19
Pandemic and the same has been lifted. Therefore, the only ground
in the impugned order no longer survives.
4. In that view of the matter, we dispose of this petition by
directing that the impugned order dated 27 July 2022 is quashed
and set aside. The Petitioners' proposal stands restored. If there are
any other grounds on which the Respondent- Education Officer
intends to return or reject the proposal, he is directed to
communicate the same to the Petitioners within a period of three
weeks from today.
5. The Petitioners shall thereafter submit their explanation to the
proposed grounds, along with supporting material including
government resolutions, case laws / orders of this Court etc. if relied
upon. The Respondent- Education Officer is directed to decide the
proposal of Petitioner No. 1 thereafter within a period of eight
weeks, by dealing with the explanation given by the Educational
Institute as also dealing with case laws / orders of this Court, by
passing a reasoned order, subject to other time bound directions. The
order will be passed keeping in mind the directions issued by this
Court in Part II Clause A(i) to (iii) of Judgment dated 16 April 2024
in the matter of Nitin B. Tadge Vs. State of Maharashtra in Writ
Petition No. 204 of 2019 and other companion petitions.
6. We have not expressed any opinion on the Petitioners'
54(2) WP-11778-2022.doc
proposal and the same shall be decided on its own merits in
accordance with law. Needless to mention that if the Respondent-
Education Officer proceeds to grant proposal as prayed, consequent
benefits and orders will follow, and in that case, the aforesaid
procedure/directions will not apply.
7. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
( M.M. SATHAYE, J.) ( NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
