Ruma Shadab Kharbe And ANR v. State Of Maha. Thr. Sec. School Education Dept. And ORS

1 86-WP-10214-2023.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10214 OF 2023 Ruma Shadab Kharbe and Anr.

... Petitioners V/s The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

... Respondents .......

Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. Vinayak Kumbhar i/b Ashwini Bandiwadekar,for the Petitioner. Mr. R.P. Kadam AGP for Respondent-State in WP No. 10214/2023.

.......

YUGANDHARA SHARAD PATIL by YUGANDHARA SHARAD PATIL Date:

2024.01.15 18:34:06 +0530 CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & M.M.SATHAYE, JJ.

DATE : 9 JANUARY 2024 P.C.:

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

The Petitioner Nos. 1/ Employee and Petitioner No. 2 Management have jointly filed this petition challenging the order dated 16 December 2022 by Respondent No. 3 /Education Officer rejecting the approval for appointment of Petitioner No. 1 on the post of Laboratory Assistant.

3.

The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the impugned order is passed without giving any opportunity to

2 86-WP-10214-2023.doc the Educational Institute to submit explanation to the ground/s on which the proposal is rejected.

4.

Indeed, had the Educational Institute been given an opportunity, it would have given explanation dealing with the grounds of rejection. This method adopted by Education Officer of directly rejecting the proposals, without informing proposed grounds of rejection, is giving rise to flood of litigation which takes precious judicial time of this Court because an inquiry about the grounds of rejection is required to be done in this Court at the first instance.

5.

In that view of the matter, we dispose of this petition by directing that the impugned order dated 16 December 2022 will be treated as notice to Petitioners of the proposed ground/s of rejection. The Petitioners' proposal stands restored. If there are any other grounds on which the Education Officer intends to reject the proposal, he is directed to communicate the same to the Educational Institute within a period of 3 weeks from today. 6.

The Petitioners shall thereafter submit its explanation to the proposed grounds of rejection, along with supporting material and case laws/orders of this Court, if relied upon. The Respondent / Education Officer is directed to decide the proposal by dealing with the explanation given by the Petitioners as also

3 86-WP-10214-2023.doc dealing with case law/orders of this Court, by passing a reasoned order within a period of 8 weeks from the receipt of explanation from the Educational Institute, subject to other time bound directions and pressing public duty, if any.

7.

We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of 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 approval, the aforesaid procedure/directions will not apply. 8.

The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (M.M.SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)