Smt. Kavle Laxmi Narsimlu And ANR. v. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, School Edu. Dept. And ANR.

Sr.No.913 WP 5371.16 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5371 OF 2016 Smt. Kavle Laxmi Narsimlu and anr.

..Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032 and anr.

..Respondents Mr. N. V. Bandivadekar along with Mr. Sagar Mane and Mr. Mandar Bagkar, advocates for the petitioners.

Mrs. Molina P. Thakur, AGP for the State.

CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & RANJIT MORE, J J.

DATE : 4th MAY, 2016.

P. C. :

Parties through their counsel.

2.

By filing this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 2nd March, 2016, passed by the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad-Thane, rejecting the proposal for approval of the appointment of petitioner No.1 as Shikshan Sevak. As regards the reasons assigned in the rejection order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the authority has not given any opportunity to the petitioners to cure the deficiencies. He also submits that as regard deficiency No.31, the same is not applicable as the institution, in which, the petitioner No.1 is working is a minority institution. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the order dated 31st March, 2016, passed by this Court in the case of Vinod Shubhada S Kadam 1/2

Sr.No.913 WP 5371.16 Laxman Shelkar and anr. versus the State of Maharashtra and anr. in writ petition No.2207 of 2016. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as regards petitioner No.2 being a minority institution, a certificate (annexed at "Exhibit A") has been filed. In the circumstances, the rejection of the proposal for approval on the deficiency No.31 cannot be sustained.

3.

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, we are inclined to dispose of this petition by setting-aside the impugned order with further directions to respondent No.2 to give an opportunity to the petitioners to made good the deficiencies mentioned in the impugned order except the deficiency No.31. In regard to the deficiencies, the petitioners would be at liberty either to make good the deficiencies or to make submissions before the concerned authority that those deficiencies are not in fact the deficiencies. The 2nd respondent shall consider the contentions as may be raised by the petitioners and pass a reasoned order as expeditiously as possible and within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The petitioners to make good the deficiencies within two weeks from today. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.

[RANJIT MORE, J.] [SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.] Shubhada S Kadam 2/2