Ranjana Manikrao Mundhe v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others
2025:BHC-AUG:8521-DB 1 WP1654.2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1654 OF 2020 .
Ranjana Manikrao Mundhe, Age: 45 Years, Occu.: Service, R/o. C/o. Gangamata Kanya Vidyalaya, Lohara, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur .. Petitioner
VERSUS
1.
The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2.
The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Latur 3.
Shyam Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Nagalgaon Tanda, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur, Through it's Secretary 4.
The Head Master, Gangamata Girls Secondary & Higher Secondary School, Lohara, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur .. Respondents ...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. S. S. Jadhavar h/f. Mr. Suhas R. Shirsat GP for Respondent/State: Mr. A. B. Girase ...
CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, C.J. & ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 21st MARCH, 2025 ORDER: [Per Arun R. Pedneker, J.] 1.
Heard.
2 WP1654.2020 2.
By the present petition the Petitioner is seeking direction against the Respondent / Management to submit his proposal to the State Authorities seeking regularisation of his appointment for the post of Assistant Teacher from the period of 2002 till 2011. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was appointed on the post in the year 2002 and continues to be on the post. He submits that his proposal for approval was submitted in the year 2013. He submits that, the regularisation of appointment for the post of Assistant Teacher ought to have been granted from 10.06.2002 and not from the year 2013. 3.
Although, the Respondent / Management is served in the matter, none has entered appearance for the Respondent / Management. 4.
The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that the Management has not submitted the proposal for approval from the year 2002 rather had submitted the proposal from the period 2013 onwards. He submits that if any such a proposal is forwarded by the Management the State would consider the same in accordance with law.
5.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that he would make a representation to the Management seeking approval of his
3 WP1654.2020 appointment from the year 2002 with all necessary documents within a period of two (02) week's from today.
6.
Considering the submission of the State Government and also considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, we deem it appropriate to direct the Management / Institution / Respondent No.3 and 4 to forward the proposal made by the Petitioner for approval to the State. The management shall forward it to the Respondent / State Authority within a period of four (04) week's. The proposal forwarded to the Respondent / State Authority, is directed to be decided within four (04) months thereafter.
7.
Considering the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of with above directions.
[ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] marathe