Bombay High Court
Kodoli Vibhag Shikshan Sangh Thr. Its ... vs The State Of Maha. Thr. Sec. School ... on 8 August, 2024
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, M. M. Sathaye
2024:BHC-AS:31746-DB
Digitally
signed by
ANANT
ANANT KRISHNA
KRISHNA NAIK
6 WP 6996-24.doc
NAIK Date:
2024.08.09
11:12:37
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6996 OF 2024
Kodoli Vibhag Shikshan Sangh
Through Its President/Secretary And Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ...Respondents
Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioners.
Ms A. A. Purav, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR &
M. M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATED : 8 AUGUST 2024
P.C.:
. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner No. 1 Education Institute, Petitioner No. 2 High School
& Junior College and Petitioner No. 3 employee (Subhash Ananda Patil)
are jointly challenging the Order dated 15 November 2022 passed by
Respondent No. 5 / Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Kolhapur. By said impugned Order, the approval for appointment of
Petitioner No. 3 as Shikshan Sevak is rejected.
3. Perused the impugned Order, which is admittedly passed without
any show cause notice or hearing to Petitioners. Had an opportunity been
6 WP 6996-24.doc
given, the Petitioners would have given 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 15 November 2022 will be treated as
notice to Petitioners of the proposed ground/s for rejection of Petitioner
No. 3's proposal, which stands restored. Reply-affidavit filed on behalf of
Respondent No. 5 Education Officer which is nothing but reiteration of
reasons in impugned order, be treated as prima facie opinion. 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 3 weeks from today.
5. The Petitioners 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 of
Petitioner No. 3 thereafter within a period of 8 weeks, by dealing with
the explanation given by the Educational Institute as also dealing with
case law/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
6 WP 6996-24.doc
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' 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.)
