Bombay High Court
Chiveli Panchkroshi Vikas Mandal Thr. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary ... on 5 September, 2024
Author: M.M. Sathaye
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, M.M. Sathaye
2024:BHC-AS:36032-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11479 OF 2022
Chiveli Panchkroshi Vikas Mandal and Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
****
SNEHA
NITIN Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioner.
CHAVAN Mr. S.B. Kalel, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5/State.
Digitally signed
by SNEHA
NITIN CHAVAN
****
Date: 2024.09.06
18:42:44 +0530 CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND
M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATE : 5 SEPTEMBER 2024
P.C.:
. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner No. 3 (Akshay Anant Salvi) working with Petitioner
No. 2 School run by Petitioner No. 1 Education Institute are jointly
challenging the order dated 23 June 2022 passed by Respondent No.
5 / Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ratnagiri. By the
said impugned order, approval to appointment of Petitioner No. 3 as
Shikshan Sevak is rejected.
3. Perused the impugned order which is admittedly passed
without issuing show cause or hearing the Petitioners. Had an
opportunity been given, the Petitioners would have given
Sneha Chavan
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. Reason No. 3 in the impugned order is based on ban under
Government Resolution (GR) dated 4 May 2020. It is an admitted
position before us that the ban imposed by the said GR was due to
the situation brought about by Covid-19 Pandemic, which no longer
exists and the ban has been lifted. Therefore, this ground in the
impugned order no longer survives and the same is set aside. Rest of
the grounds are factual in nature.
5. In that view of the matter, we dispose of this petition by
directing that the impugned order dated 23 June 2022 will be
treated as notice to Petitioners of the proposed ground/s for rejection
of Petitioner No. 3's proposal, which stands restored. Affidavit in
reply filed on behalf of Respondent No. 5 Education Officer will be
treated as only prima facie opinion. 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
proposed grounds, along with supporting material including
government resolutions, case laws / orders of this Court etc. if relied
Sneha Chavan
upon. Thereafter within a period of 8 weeks, subject to other time
bound directions, the Respondent Education Officer is directed to
decide Petitioner No.3's proposal 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.
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.)
1 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1116
Sneha Chavan
