Smita Sharad Naik v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1613 OF 2019 Smita d/o Sharad Naik, Age: 27 years, Occ: Service, R/o. Near I.T.I. College, Ahmednagar.

..PETITIONER

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra Department of School Education and Sports, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2.

The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar.

3.

The Deputy Director of Education, Pune Region, Pune.

4.

Marathi Mission, M.M. Polytechnic Holyoke Bungalow, Clarabruce Girls High School, Behind M.M. Book Shop, Station Road, Ahmednagar Through its Chairman Shri. D.G. Bambal.

..RESPONDENTS Mr Santosh S. Jadhavar, Advocate for petitioner; Mr A.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondent/State CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND S.M.GAVHANE, JJ.

DATE : 21st FEBRUARY, 2019 ORAL ORDER :

Heard Mr. Jadhavar, learned Counsel

(2) appearing for the petitioner.

2.

Considering limited grievance raised in the petition, we are of the opinion that the petition can be disposed of at admission stage itself by issuing appropriate directions to the respondents.

3.

It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner was holding due qualification, he was appointed by order dated 1st June, 2014 on the post of Shikshan Sevak by respondent No. 4 - institute.

It is then submitted that respondent No. 4 is a minority institute. The proposal for grant of approval to the appointment is submitted to respondent No.2 Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar and respondent No. 3 Deputy Director of Education, Pune Region, Pune for grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner on 28th September, 2018. He then submitted that reminder was also submitted to these authorities on 10th January, 2019, as the proposal is pending since

(3) long, the petitioner prays for directions to decide the proposal.

4.

This being a limited grievance, we direct respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to decide the proposal submitted to them either on 28th September, 2018 or by way of reminder dated 10th January, 2019 as early as possible and preferably within eight (8) weeks from the date of this order. We further make it clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the proposal and we leave the issue for consideration by the authorities. Needless to state that the authorities to decide the proposal considering various Government circulars or position of law reflected in the judicial decisions by the higher forums like, this Court or the Hon'ble the Apex Court.

5.

With these directions, the petition is disposed of.

( S.M.GAVHANE ) (PRASANNA B. VARALE) JUDGE JUDGE Tupe