Bombay High Court
Shaikh Sajid Ahmed Ilyas vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr The ... on 8 August, 2024
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, M. M. Sathaye
2024:BHC-AS:31747-DB
Digitally
signed by
ANANT
ANANT KRISHNA
KRISHNA NAIK
NAIK Date:
2024.08.09 52.WP.3265.2023.doc
11:15:35
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3265 OF 2023
Shaikh Sajid Ahmed Ilyas ....Petitioner
V/S
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondents
Mr. Sanjeev B. Deore for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3-State
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR &
M. M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATED : 8 AUGUST 2024
P.C.:
. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner/ employee working with Respondent No. 5 School run
by Respondent No. 4 Educational Institute, is challenging the Order
dated 14 December 2020 passed by Respondent No. 3 / Education
Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Thane. By said impugned Order, the
approval for Petitioner's appointment from part-time post to full-time
post is rejected. None appears for Respondent No. 4 & 5 despite due
service as per office note / bailiff report. Therefore, we proceed on the
footing that the Respondent Management is not contesting the petition.
52.WP.3265.2023.doc
3. Perused the impugned Order which is admittedly passed without
any show cause notice to the Respondent Management or Petitioner. Had
an opportunity been given, the Petitioner / Respondent Management
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 14 December 2020 will be treated as
notice to Respondent / Educational Institute of the proposed ground/s
for rejection of Petitioner's proposal, which 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 3 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 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
52.WP.3265.2023.doc
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 proposal and
the same shall be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. If the
Respondent Education Officer proceeds to grant proposal as prayed,
consequent benefits will follow.
7. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(M. M. SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
