Shri. Sunil Dinkr Anuse v. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, School Edu. And Sports Dept. And ORS
Sneha Chavan 1 48-WP-8822-23 and ors (2).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8822 OF 2023 Shri. Swapnil Vasant Nagtilak
...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thr. the Secretary School Education And Sports And Ors
...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8783 OF 2023 SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date:
2024.01.23 13:19:25 +0530 Vijay Subhash Chauriya
...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thr. the Secretary School Education And Sports And Ors .
...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8784 OF 2023 Ashish Subhash Jagtap
...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thr. the Secretary School Education And Sports And Ors
...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7244 OF 2022 Shri. Sunil Dinkar Anuse
...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thr. the Secretary, School Education And Sports Department And Ors
...Respondents
Sneha Chavan 2 48-WP-8822-23 and ors (2).doc WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 13982 OF 2023 Shri. Santosh Ramesh Misal
...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thr. the Secretary, School Education Department And Sports Ors
...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4982 OF 2023 Shri. Prashant Sahadev Kadam
...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thr. the Secretary, School Education And Sports Dept. And Ors
...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9882 OF 2022 Shri Pundlik Ananda Kharade
...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thr. the Secretary, School Education And Sports Dept. And Ors
...Respondents
**** Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioners.
Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent/State.
**** CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND M.M.SATHAYE, JJ.
DATE : 11 JANUARY 2024
Sneha Chavan 3 48-WP-8822-23 and ors (2).doc P.C.:
.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The table showing necessary details for passing common order, are as below. Writ Petition Name of Working Impugned Order dated Passed by Respondent No.
the Petitioner as Authority 8822/2023 Swapnil Vasant Nagtilak Junior Clerk 28.11.2022 Resp. No. 4 Dy.
Director of Education, Pune Region, Pune 8783/2023 Vijay Subhash Chauriya Junior Clerk 14.12.2022 Resp. No. 4 Dy.
Director of Education, Mumbai Region, Mumbai 8784/2023 Ashish Subhash Jagtap Junior Clerk 14.12.2022 Resp. No. 4 Dy.
Director of Education, Mumbai Region, Mumbai 7244/2022 Sunil Dinkar Anuse Shikshan Sevak 18.04.2022 Resp. No. 4 Dy.
Director of Education, Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur 13982/2023 Santosh Ramesh Misal Peon 25.02.2021 Resp. No. 6 Superintendent of Pay and Provident Fund Unit, Raigad 4982/2023 Prashant Sahadev Asst.
Teacher 09.05.2022 Resp. No. 4 Dy.
Director of
Sneha Chavan 4 48-WP-8822-23 and ors (2).doc Kadam Education, Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur 9882/2022 Pundlik Ananda Kharade Shikshan Sevak 29.04.2022 Resp. No. 4 Dy.
Director of Education, Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur 2.
Petitioners in these group of matters are working on various posts with their respective Respondent Managements. They are challenging various impugned Orders passed by Respondent Authorities, under which their proposal for entering names in Shalarth ID have been rejected. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioners, on instructions, that their respective Respondent managements are supporting their cause till today, and we proceed on the basis of said statement.
3.
It is submitted that, had an opportunity been given, the Petitioners alongwith their respective Respondent Managements would have given appropriate and necessary explanation about reason of rejection.
4.
This method adopted by Education Officer of directly rejecting the proposals, without informing proposed grounds of rejection, is giving rise to unnecessary litigation which takes precious judicial
Sneha Chavan 5 48-WP-8822-23 and ors (2).doc time of this Court because an inquiry about the grounds of rejection are required to be done first time in this Court. 5.
In that view of the matter, we dispose of these petitions by directing that the aforesaid impugned orders will be treated as notices to the respective Respondent / Educational Institutes of the proposed ground/s of rejection. The Petitioners' proposals stand restored. If there are any other grounds on which the respective Respondent Authorities intend to reject the proposals, they are directed to communicate the same to the respective Respondent Educational Institutes, within a period of 3 weeks from today. 6.
The respective Respondent Educational Institutes shall thereafter submit their explanation to the proposed grounds of rejection, along with supporting material and case laws / orders of this Court, if relied upon. The respective Respondent Authorities are directed to decide the proposal thereafter within a period of 8 weeks, by dealing with the explanation/s given by the Educational Institutes as also dealing with case law/orders of this Court, by passing a reasoned order, subject to other time bound directions. 7.
We have not expressed any opinion on the Petitioners' proposals and the same shall be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. Needless to mention that if the concerned Respondent Authorities proceed to grant proposal for Shalarth IDs, the aforesaid procedure/directions will not apply. The contention of
Sneha Chavan 6 48-WP-8822-23 and ors (2).doc the Petitioners that once approval is granted, Shalarth ID cannot be rejected, is kept open.
8.
The writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ( M.M. SATHAYE, J.) ( NITIN JAMDAR, J.)