Bombay High Court
Shahu Shikshan Prasarak Seva Mandal Thr ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr The ... on 13 August, 2024
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, M. M. Sathaye
9-10-wp-11168-11196-24.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(9) WRIT PETITION NO. 11168 OF 2024
Shahu Shikshan Prasarak Seva Mandal And Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ...Respondents
AND
(10) WRIT PETITION NO. 11196 OF 2024
Shahu Shikshan Prasarak Seva Mandal And Ors ...Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ...Respondents
Mr. Utkarsh Desai i/b. Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioners in both
the Writ Petitions.
Mr. Vikas M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent-State in WP/11168/2024
Ms Reena Salunkhe, AGP for the Respondent-State in WP/11196/2024
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR &
M. M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATED : 13 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 23 January 2024 passed by
Respondent No. 5 / Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
9-10-wp-11168-11196-24.doc
Kolhapur, who is common in both petitions.
3. By impugned Order in Writ Petition No. 11168 of 2024, the
approval for appointment of Petitioner No. 3 (Amarjeet Ramchandra
Mane) as Librarian is rejected. By impugned Order in Writ Petition No.
11196 of 2024, the approval for appointment of Petitioner No. 3
(Mahesh Dnyandev Jadhav) as Laboratory Assistant is rejected.
4. Perused the impugned Orders, which are admittedly passed
without any show cause notice/hearing to the Petitioners. Had an
opportunity been given, the Petitioners would have given appropriate
and necessary explanation to reasons stated in impugned orders 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 23 January 2024 will be treated as notice
to Petitioners of the proposed ground/s for rejection of Petitioner No. 3's
proposals, which stand restored. If there are any other grounds on which
the Respondent Education Officer intends to return or reject the
proposals, he is directed to communicate the same to the Petitioners
within a period of 3 weeks from today.
6. The Petitioners shall thereafter submit explanation to the proposed
grounds, along with supporting material including government
resolutions, case laws / orders of this Court etc. if relied upon. The
9-10-wp-11168-11196-24.doc
Respondent Education Officer is directed to decide the proposals 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
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 their 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.)
