Bombay High Court
Vitthalrao Chavan Patil Shikshan ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. The ... on 21 August, 2024
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, M. M. Sathaye
2024:BHC-AS:33469-DB
Digitally signed
ANANT by ANANT
KRISHNA NAIK
KRISHNA Date: 10-WP-10157-24.doc
NAIK 2024.08.21
15:25:44 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10157 OF 2024
Vitthalrao Chavan-Patil Shikshan Prasarak
Santha Kine Throught its President/Secretary
And Ors ...Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ...Respondents
Mr. Prashant Bhavke for the Petitioners
Mr. K. S. Thorat, 'B' Panel Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR &
M. M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATED : 21 AUGUST 2024
P.C.:
. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner No. 1 Education Institute, Petitioner No. 2 High School
and Petitioner No. 3 employee (Rohan Namdev Bandiwadekar) are
jointly challenging the Order dated 7 August 2023 passed by
Respondent No. 5 / Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Kolhapur. By said impugned Order, the approval for appointment of
Petitioner No. 3 as Junior Clerk is rejected. Perused the impugned Order,
which is admittedly passed without any show cause notice / opportunity /
hearing to Petitioners. Had an opportunity been given, the Petitioners
10-WP-10157-24.doc
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.
3. One of the reasons (reason No. 6) for rejecting the proposal is the
ban under communication dated 5 May 2020. It is an admitted position
before us that the said ban was based on Government Resolution (GR)
dated 4 May 2020 issued due to the situation brought about by Covid-19
Pandemic. That situation no longer exists and the ban has been lifted.
Therefore, that reason in the impugned order no longer survives and is
accordingly set aside.
4. So far as reason no. 5 in the impugned order is concerned, it is
relating to certain Government Resolutions (GRs) about staffing pattern.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that if an opportunity is
given, the Petitioner Management will point out the present position
based on concerned GRs and applicable orders of this Court.
5. In that view of the matter, we dispose of this petition by directing
that the impugned order dated 7 August 2023 will be treated as notice to
Petitioners of the proposed ground/s for rejection of Petitioner No. 3'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
10-WP-10157-24.doc
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 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 Maharashtra in Writ Petition No.
204 of 2019 and other companion petitions.
7. 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.
8. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(M. M. SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
