Sudhirkumar Vyankatrao v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

2024:BHC-AUG:17361-DB 1 949(i).WP-1009-2023.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No. 1009 / 2023 Sudhirkumar Vyankatrao, Age : 30 years, Occu. Service R/o Valandi, Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur.

...Petitioner

Versus

1.

State of Maharashtra Through it's Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2.

The Director of Education (Secondary), Maharashtra State, Pune.

3.

The Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Latur Division, Latur.

4.

The Secretary, Lok Jagruti Shikshan Sanstha, Valandi, Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur.

5.

The Head Master, Vyankatesh Secondary and Higher Secondary Vidyalaya Valandi, Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur. ..Respondents _ _ _ Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Dayanand S. Mali A.G.P. for Respondents/State : Mr. S.P. Joshi _ _ _

2 949(i).WP-1009-2023.doc CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.

DATE : 06 AUGUST 2024 E 2024 PER COURT :

.

Heard.

2.

Petitioner's proposal seeking approval to his appointment came to be rejected by the respondent No. 3/Deputy Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur vide impugned order dated 05.12.2022 only on the ground that the procedure as contemplated by the Government Resolution dated 23.06.2017 was not followed.

3.

We have already taken a view by order dated 10.06.2024 in Writ Petition No. 13150 of 2022 in the matter of Shaikh Jaweria Khadarsab Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others that the Education Officer/Deputy Director of Education has to conduct objective scrutiny of the proposal and it cannot be rejected only on the ground that procedure as contemplated by the Government Resolution was not followed.

4.

In that view of the matter, we dispose of the petition by quashing the impugned order dated 05.12.2022 and directing the respondent No. 3/Deputy Director of Education to reconsider the

3 949(i).WP-1009-2023.doc proposal of the petitioner for grant of approval to his appointment on its own merits. The decision shall be taken as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of four

(04) weeks from today. However, same shall not be rejected on the grounds mentioned in the impugned order.

SHAILESH P. BRAHME MANGESH S. PATIL JUDGE JUDGE Najeeb..