Manthana Ramdas Thakur And ORS v. Dy. Director Of Education And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Digitally signed by ANANT KRISHNA NAIK Date:

2024.03.07 12:23:08 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 16508 OF 2023 ANANT KRISHNA NAIK Manthana Ramdas Thakur And Ors

...Petitioners

Versus

Dy. Director Of Education And Anr

...Respondents

Adv. A. A. Garge a/w. Adv. Kashyap Bhalekar for the Petitioner. Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for the Respondent-State CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & M. M. SATHAYE, JJ.

DATED : 6 MARCH, 2024 P.C.:

.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

Petitioner No. 1 employee, Petitioner No. 2 Educational Institute and Petitioner No. 3 Junior College are jointly challenging the Order dated 23 August 2023 passed by Respondent No. 1 / Dy. Director of Education, Mumbai Division, Mumbai, by which the approval to appointment of Petitioner No. 1 as Shikshan Sevak is rejected.

3.

It is submitted that the impugned order is passed directly without any show cause notice about proposed grounds of rejection. It is further submitted that had an opportunity been given, the Petitioners would have given appropriate and necessary explanations

to the reason stated in impugned Order for rejection. This is yet another matter, where an inquiry about the grounds of rejection are required to be done for the first time in this Court. 4.

In that view of the matter, we dispose of this petition by directing that the impugned order dated 23 August 2023 shall be treated as notice to the Petitioners of the proposed grounds of rejection. The Petitioners' proposal stands restored. If there are any other grounds on which Respondent No. 1 intends to reject the proposal, he is directed to communicate the same to the Petitioners within a period of 3 weeks from today.

5.

The Petitioners shall thereafter submit their explanation to the proposed grounds of rejection, along with supporting material and case laws, government resolutions, orders of this Court etc. if relied upon. The Respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the proposal thereafter, by dealing with the explanation given by the Petitioners as also dealing with case law/orders of this Court, by passing a reasoned order, within a period of 8 weeks, subject to other time bound directions.

6.

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 No. 1 proceeds to grant proposal as prayed, consequent benefits and orders will follow, and in that case, the aforesaid procedure/directions

will not apply.

7.

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