Bombay High Court
Chandrakant Ananda Kute And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr The ... on 13 August, 2024
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, M. M. Sathaye
2024:BHC-AS:32572-DB
LSP 1 16wp 11186.24.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Writ Petition No.11186 of 2024
Chandrakant Ananda Kute and anr. ... Petitioners.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
Thr. The Secretary,
School Education Department
and Ors. ... Respondents.
Mr.Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Ravi
Kadam for the Petitioner.
Digitally
signed by
LATA Mr. V.G.Badgujar, AGP for the State.
LATA SUNIL
SUNIL PANJWANI
PANJWANI Date:
2024.08.14
15:36:48
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR, AND
+0530
M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATE : 13 August 2024.
P.C. :
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave is granted to
correct the education qualification of the Petitioner No. 1 in
Paragraph 2, Page 4 and qualification mentioned in the
advertisement in Paragraph 6. Amendment to be carried out
forthwith.
2. Petitioner No.1-Employee working with school run by
Petitioner No. 2-Education Institute are jointly challenging the
Order dated 13 June 2024 passed by Respondent No. 3-Education
LSP 2 16wp 11186.24.doc
Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli. By said impugned Order,
the approval for appointment of Petitioner No. 1 as Shikshan Sevak
is rejected.
3. Perused the impugned Order, which is admittedly passed
without any show cause notice or hearing to the Petitioners. Had an
opportunity 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.
4. In that view of the matter, we dispose of this petition by
directing that the impugned order dated 13 June 2024 will be treated
as notice to Petitioners of the proposed ground/s for rejection of
Petitioner No. 1'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 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. 1 thereafter within a period of 8 weeks, by
dealing with the explanation given by the Educational Institute as
LSP 3 16wp 11186.24.doc
also dealing with case law/orders of this Court, by passing a reasoned
order, subject to other time bound directions.
6. As regards the reason of availability of surplus teachers taken in
the impugned order is concerned, the Education Officer had rejected
the request for sending the names of the surplus teachers by order
dated 25/26 April 2023. It is open to the Petitioners to point out this
factual position to the Education Officer, who will deal with this
position in the order that will be passed, and give specific reasons.
Not doing so will be considered as breach of the order of the Court.
7. 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
Maharashtra1.
8. 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.
9. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
1 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1116
