Bombay High Court
Jaydeep Jaysing Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 5 August, 2024
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, M.M. Sathaye
2024:BHC-AS:31216-DB
54(1) WP-2525-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2525 OF 2022
Jaydeep Jaysing Patil ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
***
Mr. Satyajeet A. Rajeshirke, for Petitioner.
Ms. Dhruti Kapadia, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5.
***
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
order dated 25 September 2021 passed by Respondent No. 2 /
Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli. By said
impugned order, the approval for Petitioner's appointment as Junior
Clerk 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. 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(1) WP-2525-2022.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 25 September 2021 is
quashed and set aside. The Petitioner's 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 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 Officer 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
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
54(1) WP-2525-2022.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.)
