Nanda Raghunath Ahire v. Satish Pradhan Dnyansadhana College Of Arts, Science And Commerce Through Its Principal And ORS.

JPP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4748 OF 2018 Nanda Raghunath Ahire WRIT PETITION NO. 4749 OF 2018 Satish Sudhakar Madle WRIT PETITION NO. 4750 OF 2018 Malhari K. Shirtode WRIT PETITION NO. 4751 OF 2018 Priti Ravindra Khandare-Nikte

WRIT PETITION NO. 4752 OF 2018 Sugandha S. Pawaskar WRIT PETITION NO. 4753 OF 2018 Manjushree A. Shendre WRIT PETITION NO. 4754 OF 2018 Anand S. Yadav WRIT PETITION NO. 4755 OF 2018 Sangeeta M. Onkeshwar

WRIT PETITION NO. 4756 OF 2018 Khan Mohammed Zia WRIT PETITION NO. 4757 OF 2018 Mahesh B. Kulsange Ms. Sanskruti Yadav i/b. Swaraj S. Jadhav for the Petitioners Mr. T.D. Deshmukh for the Respondent No.1 in all Petitions Mr. M.M. Pabale, AGP for Respondent - State in WP 4748/18 & WP 4756/18 Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for Respondent - State in WP 4749/18 Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for Respondent - State in WP 4750/18 Ms. Reena Salunkhe, AGP for Respondent - State in WP 4751/18 Ms. Ashwini Purav, AGP for Respondent - State in WP 4752/18 Mr. Siddheshwar Kalel, AGP for Respondent - State in WP 4753/18 & WP 4757/18 Ms. Tejas Kapre, AGP for Respondent - State in WP 4754/18 Ms. Pooja Joshi Deshpande, AGP for Respondent - State in WP 4755/18

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

DATE : 05 APRIL 2024 P.C. :- Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

The Petitioners are working with the Respondent No.1 - Management. They are challenging the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education dated 23 May 2017 rejecting the proposal sent by the Respondent No.1 - Management for approval of their appointments.

3.

The learned Counsel for the Respondents states that the Respondent - Management is supporting the cause of the Petitioners. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that if the grounds in the impugned order were informed to the Petitioners and the Respondent No.2 in advance calling for an explanation they would have answered to the same as the Petitioners have explanation as for each of the grounds in the impugned order. 4.

We find merit in this grievance. This Court in various order has directed the education authorities to give advance notice to the Management and the employees, as the case may be, calling for the explanation and to deal with the same, including the reliance on

the judicial pronouncements, if any. We intend to adopt the same course of action in the present case as well. 5.

Accordingly, it is directed that the order dated 7 September 2018 shall be treated as a show cause notice. The Respondent - Management will submit its explanation and judicial pronouncements, if any. It is open to the Petitioners to submit explanation as well. The Deputy Director will deal with the same and pass a reasoned order. If the Respondent - Management and the Petitioner rely on any judicial pronouncements and the Deputy Director does not deal with the same in the impugned order, then the said conduct will be viewed seriously.s 6.

The Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.

NITIN JAMDAR, J.

by JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR Date:

2024.04.12 11:11:30 +0530 JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR