Bombay High Court
Jay Bhavani Shikshan Sanstha And Ors vs The State Of Maharshtra Thr The ... on 26 August, 2024
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, M. M. Sathaye
2024:BHC-AS:34009-DB
1 12-WP-12028-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12028 OF 2024
Jay Bhavani Shikshan Sanstha And Ors ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
****
Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioners.
Ms. Tejas Kapre, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State.
****
SNEHA
NITIN
CHAVAN CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND
Digitally signed
by SNEHA M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.
NITIN CHAVAN
Date: 2024.08.26
16:46:34 +0530
DATE : 26 AUGUST 2024
P.C. :
. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner No. 1 Education Institute, Petitioner No. 2 School
and Petitioner No. 3 employee (Narayan Uttam Kumbhar) are
jointly challenging the Order dated 10 July 2023 (issued on 14 July
2023) passed by Respondent No. 3 / Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Sangli. By said impugned Order, the approval for
upgradation of Petitioner No. 3 from Peon to Junior Clerk is
rejected.
3. Perused the impugned Order, which is admittedly passed
without any show cause notice / opportunity / hearing to Petitioners.
Sneha Chavan
2 12-WP-12028-2024.doc
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. The only reason in the impugned order is based on a
communication dated 1 August 2022, which is produced on record
(Exhibit J page 56). The said communication is issued because of
interim stay that was granted by this Court in W.P.No. 5058 of 2021
and W. P. Nos. 8007 of 2021 filed by non-teaching staff associations.
It is rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Petitioners
that subsequently this Court by its order dated 6 February 2024 has
disposed of both these petitions and interim stay has been vacated.
Therefore today the said reason does not survive and is accordingly
set aside.
5. In that view of the matter, we dispose of this petition by setting
aside the impugned order. The Petitioner No. 3's proposal 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.
6. The Petitioners shall thereafter submit its explanation to the
Sneha Chavan
3 12-WP-12028-2024.doc
proposed grounds, along with supporting material including
government resolutions, case laws etc. if relied upon.
7. Thereafter within a period of 8 weeks, subject to other time
bound directions, the Respondent Education Officer is directed to
decide the proposal of Petitioner No. 3 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. The order
will be passed keeping in mind the directions issued by this Court in
Part II Clause A(i) to (iii) of the judgment in the matter of Nitin B.
Tadge Vs. State of Maharashtra 1.
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
Sneha Chavan
