Bombay High Court
Sangramsing Subhash Kambale vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 5 August, 2024
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, M.M. Sathaye
2024:BHC-AS:31222-DB
54(4) WP-2534-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2534 OF 2022
Sangramsing Subhash Kambale ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
***
Mr. Satyajeet A. Rajeshirke, for Petitioner.
Ms. Dhruti Kapadia, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
***
CORAM: NITIN JAMDAR &
Digitally signed
by HUSENBASHA
M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.
HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN
RAHAMAN NADAF
NADAF Date: 2024.08.06
18:16:34 +0530 DATE : 5 AUGUST 2024
P.C.:
. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner/ employee working with Respondent No. 4 School
run by Respondent No. 3 Educational Institute, is challenging the
orrder dated 18 November 2021 passed by Respondent No. 2 /
Deputy Director of Education, Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur. By said
impugned order, the approval for Petitioner's appointment as
Laboratory Assistant is rejected. None appears for Respondent No. 3
& 4 / Management despite due service of notice for final disposal, as
per office note/bailiff report. We proceed therefore on the basis that
the Respondent Management is not contesting the Petitioner's case.
3. Perused the impugned order, which is admittedly passed
without any show cause notice and had an opportunity been given,
the Petitioner / Respondent Management would have given
54(4) WP-2534-2022.doc
appropriate and necessary explanation to reasons stated in impugned
order for rejecting proposal. It has resulted in a situation where
inquiry about the grounds of rejection are required to be done first
time in this Court.
4. In that view of the matter, we dispose of this petition by
directing that the impugned order dated 18 November 2021 will be
treated as notice to Respondent / Educational Institute of the
proposed ground/s for rejection of Petitioner's proposal, which stands
restored. Affidavit in reply filed by Respondent- Deputy Director of
Education will be treated as prima facie opinion. If there are any
other grounds on which the Respondent Education Authority
intends to return or reject the proposal, he is directed to
communicate the same to the Respondent/Educational Institute
within a period of three weeks from today.
5. The Respondent Educational Institute shall thereafter submit
its 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 Authority is
directed to decide the proposal 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
54(4) WP-2534-2022.doc
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 Petitioner's
proposal and the same shall be decided on its own merits in
accordance with law. Needless to mention that if the Respondent
Education Authority 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.)
