Bombay High Court
Kodoli Vibhag Shikshan Sangh And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra Thru The ... on 8 August, 2024
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, M. M. Sathaye
53to56.WP.4536.2023 .doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION
(53) WRIT PETITION NO. 4536 OF 2023
Kodoli Vibhag Shikshan Sangh & Ors. ....Petitioner
V/s
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondents
AND
(54) WRIT PETITION NO. 4545 OF 2023
Kodoli Vibhag Shikshan Sangh & Ors. ....Petitioner
V/s
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondents
AND
(55) WRIT PETITION NO. 4978 OF 2023
Kodoli Vibhag Shikshan Sangh & Ors. ....Petitioner
V/s
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondents
AND
(56) WRIT PETITION NO. 5045 OF 2023
Kodoli Vibhag Shikshan Sangh & Ors. ....Petitioner
V/s
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....Respondents
Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioners in all the Writ Petitions
Ms Ashwini A. Purav, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in
WP/4536/2023 and WP/4545/2023
Mr. K. S. Thorat, 'B' Panel Advocate for the Respondent-State in
WP/4978/2023
Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent Nos 1 to 5-State in
WP/5045/2023
akn 1/4
53to56.WP.4536.2023 .doc
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR &
M. M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATED : 8 AUGUST 2024
P.C.:
. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner No. 1 is common Education Institute running Petitioner
No. 2 High School/Junior College and Petitioner No. 3 are employees.
They are jointly challenging the Orders dated 15 November 2022 passed
by Respondent No. 5 / Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Kolhapur, who is common in all petitions.
3. By impugned Order in Writ Petition No. 4536 of 2023, the
approval for appointment of Petitioner No. 3 (Dhairyashil Ashokrao
Patil) as Laboratory Assistant is rejected. By impugned Order in Writ
Petition No. 4545 of 2023, the approval for appointment of Petitioner
No. 3 (Abhishek Bajirao Chougale) as Junior Clerk is rejected. By
impugned Order in Writ Petition No. 4978 of 2023, the approval for
appointment of Petitioner No. 3 (Ajit Pandurang Patil) as Shikshan Sevak
is rejected. By impugned Order in Writ Petition No. 5045 of 2023, the
approval for appointment of Petitioner No. 3 (Sandeep Pandurang
Suryavanshi) as Junior Clerk is rejected.
4. Perused the impugned Orders, which are admittedly passed
without any show cause notice to the Petitioners. Had an opportunity
53to56.WP.4536.2023 .doc
been 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.
5. In that view of the matter, we dispose of these petitions by directing
that the impugned orders 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 stand restored. Reply-affidavits filed on behalf of
Respondent No. 5 Education Officer which are nothing but reiteration of
reasons in impugned orders, 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.
6. 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
dated 16 April 2024 in the matter of Nitin B. Tadge Vs. State of
53to56.WP.4536.2023 .doc
Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 204 of 2019 and other companion
petitions.
7. We have not expressed any opinion on the Petitioners' proposals
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 proposals as prayed, consequent benefits and orders will follow.
8. The writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(M. M. SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
