Bombay High Court
Shri. Sourabh Sharad Desai vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 6 August, 2024
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, M.M. Sathaye
2024:BHC-AS:31442-DB
1 11 & 12-WP-10981-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10981 OF 2024
Pankaj Prakash Chikurdekar ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10983 OF 2024
Shri. Sourabh Sharad Desai ...Petitioner
SNEHA Versus
NITIN The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
CHAVAN
Digitally signed by
****
SNEHA NITIN
CHAVAN Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioners.
Date: 2024.08.07
18:07:38 +0530
Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4/State in WP
10981/2024.
Mr. S.B. Kalel, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4/State in WP
10983/2024.
Mr. Utkarsh Desai for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in both petitions.
****
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND
M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATE : 6 AUGUST 2024
P.C. :
. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned AGP for
Respondent Nos 1 to 5 and learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.
6 and 7/Management which is common in both petitions. The
learned counsel for the Management states that it is supporting the
Petitioners.
Sneha Chavan
2 11 & 12-WP-10981-2024.doc
2. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10981 of 2024 is
challenging the order dated 29 November 2023 passed by
Respondent No.5/ Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad,
Kolhapur by which approval to his appointment as 'Junior Clerk' is
rejected.
3. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10983 of 2024 is
challenging the order dated 29 November 2023 passed by
Respondent No.5/ Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad,
Kolhapur by which approval to his appointment as 'Laboratory
Assistant' is rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners pointed out that both the
impugned orders are identically worded. Perusal of the impugned
orders would show that the approvals are rejected for four reasons.
First reason is based on not taking permission before filling the post
and second reason is about not submitting copy of advertisement.
We note that these reasons are factual in nature and since the
Respondent/ Education Officer has given these reasons without any
opportunity or show cause notice to the Petitioner employee or
Respondent/ Education Institute, the factual inquiry cannot be
undertaken first time in this Court.
5. The third reason is based on embargo upon new staffing
pattern of non-teaching staff. It relies on Government Resolutions
Sneha Chavan
3 11 & 12-WP-10981-2024.doc
(GRs) dated 28 January 2019 and 7 March 2019 and other GRs
which were applicable for limited time. Learned counsel for the
Petitioners has pointed out that by order dated 6 February 2024
passed in Writ Petition 5058 of 2021 along with Writ Petition No.
8007 of 2021, the challenge given to said GRs by the Associations of
non teaching staffing including laboratory Assistants, has been finally
disposed of and there is no embargo for considering the approvals on
merits. Learned AGP has fairly accepted this position, but pointed
out that the Petitioners' proposals have not been considered on
merits so far as the applicable staffing pattern at the relevant time is
concerned.
6. The fourth and last reason in impugned order is based on
communication dated 5 May 2020 which was issued pursuant to GR
dated 4 May 2020. It is admitted position before us that the said GR
dated 4 May 2020 was issued due to Covid-19 Pandemic situation,
which no longer exists and the ban thereunder is already lifted. In
that view of the matter, the fourth reason in the impugned order does
not survives and the same is set aside.
7. In light thereof, we dispose of this petition by directing that
the impugned orders in both the petitions will be treated as notices
to Respondent/ Education Institute about the objections/reasons
stated therein except the reason of ban under the communication
dated 5 May 2020. The proposals of the Petitioners are restored.
Sneha Chavan
4 11 & 12-WP-10981-2024.doc
The Respondent/ Education Officer is directed to communicate to
the Respondent Education Institute, if there are any other
grounds/objections about the approvals being sought within a period
of 3 weeks from today.
8. The Respondent Education Institute shall thereafter submit
their explanation along with supporting GRs/case laws etc. if relied
upon.
9. The Respondent Education Officer shall thereafter within a
period of 8 weeks, subject to other time bound directions, will decide
the Petitioners' proposals in accordance with law, by reasoned order
keeping in mind the directions issued by this Court in Part II Clause
A(i) to (iii) of the Judgment of Nitin B. Tadge Vs. State of
Maharashtra1
10. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits on the
Petitioners' proposals and they shall be decided in accordance with
law. If the Respondent Education Officer decides to grant approvals
as sought, necessary consequential orders/ benefits will follow.
11. Writ Petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
1 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1116
Sneha Chavan
