Bombay High Court
Shri. Rupesh Madhukar Bhosale vs The State Of Maharashtra Thru The ... on 13 August, 2024
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, M. M. Sathaye
2024:BHC-AS:32480
Digitally
signed by 35-wp-1039-20-9999-24.doc
ANANT
ANANT KRISHNA
KRISHNA NAIK
NAIK Date:
2024.08.14
10:40:58
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1039 OF 2020
Shri. Manoj Jagannath Goregaonkar ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9999 OF 2024
Shri. Rupesh Madhukar Bhosale ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ...Respondents
Mr. Narendra Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. V. R. Kumbhar,
Mr. Rajendra B. Khaire, Mr. Aniket S. Phapale i/b. Ms. Ashwini N.
Bandiwadekar for Petitioners
Ms. A. A. Purav, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR &
M. M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATED : 13 AUGUST 2024
P.C.:
. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioners are employees of Respondent No. 4 School run by
Respondent No. 3 Education Institute. The School and Education
Institute are common. Petitioners are challenging the Orders dated 26
35-wp-1039-20-9999-24.doc
September 2017 passed by Respondent No. 2 / Education Officer
(Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Raigad-Alibag, who is common in both
petitions.
3. By impugned Order in Writ Petition No. 1039 of 2020, the
approval to Petitioner's promotion as Senior Clerk is rejected. By
impugned Order in Writ Petition No. 9999 of 2024, the approval for
appointment of Petitioner as Junior Clerk is rejected.
4. Perused the impugned Orders, which are admittedly passed
without any show cause notice / hearing to the Petitioners / Respondent
Education Institute. Had an opportunity been given, the Petitioners /
Respondent Education Institute would have given appropriate and
necessary explanation to reasons stated in impugned orders for rejecting
proposals. It has resulted in a situation where inquiry about the grounds
of rejection are required to be done first time in this Court.
5. Learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners pointed out that the
Government Resolutions (GRs) of 2017 based on which the reasons are
stated in impugned orders, are all issued after the relevant date of
promotion/appointment. He submitted that the Petitioner in Writ
Petition No. 1039 of 2020 was promoted as Senior Clerk in August 2011
and the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9999 of 2024 was appointed as
Junior Clerk in January 2012. He therefore submitted that the GRs
referred in the impugned orders cannot be applied for rejecting the
35-wp-1039-20-9999-24.doc
proposals.
6. In that view of the matter, we dispose of these Petitions by directing
that the impugned orders dated 26 September 2017 will be treated as
notice to Respondent Education Institute of the proposed ground/s of
rejection of Petitioners' 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 Respondent Education Institute within a period of 3 weeks from
today.
7. The Respondent Education Institute shall thereafter submit
explanation/s to the proposed grounds, along with supporting material
including GRs, case laws / orders of this Court etc. if relied upon.
8. The Respondent Education Officer is directed to decide the
proposals of Petitioner No. 3 thereafter within a period of 8 weeks, by
dealing with above argument of Petitioners about applicability of GRs of
2017 as also other explanation given by the Educational Institute and
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.
35-wp-1039-20-9999-24.doc
9. 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.
10. The writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(M. M. SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
