Bombay High Court
Sanjivini Dattatray Sonalkar vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Principal ... on 19 August, 2024
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, M. M. Sathaye
2024:BHC-AS:33259-DB
Digitally signed
by ANANT
ANANT KRISHNA
NAIK
KRISHNA Date:
NAIK 2024.08.20
13:05:22 17-WP-8317-24.doc
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8317 OF 2024
Sanjivini Dattatray Sonalkar ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondent
Mr. Chetan G. Patil (Through VC) i/b. Mr. Mandar G. Bagkar for the
Petitioner.
Mr. K. S. Thorat, "B" Panel Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3-
State
Mr. Bhushan S. Jadhav for the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR &
M. M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATED : 19 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 7 November 2022 passed by Respondent No. 3 / Education
Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur. By said impugned Order,
the approval for Petitioner's appointment as Shikshan Sevak is rejected.
Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 & 5 states that there is no
17-WP-8317-24.doc
internal dispute in the Management and they are supporting the cause of
the Petitioner.
3. Perused the impugned Order, which is passed without any show
cause notice. 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 7 November 2022 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
17-WP-8317-24.doc
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
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.
Needless to mention that if the Respondent Education Officer proceeds
to grant proposal as prayed, consequent benefits and orders will follow.
7. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(M. M. SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
