← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/2740/2024disposed off

Satish Annasaheb Bhosle And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Another

2024-03-12Hon'Ble Smt. Justice Vibha Kankanwadi,Hon'Ble Shri Justice S. G. Chapalgaonkar2 pages

2024:BHC-AUG:5550-DB wp 2740.24.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 924 WRIT PETITION NO. 2740 OF 2024 1.

Satish Annasaheb Bhosle 2.

Achyut s/o Pandharinath Ahire 3.

Shri Bankatswami Shikshan Sanstha Khadki Ghat through its Secretary : Raosaheb Haribhau Bhosale

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through It's Secretary And Another ...

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. S.R. Sapkal AGP for Respondents : Mr. A. M.Phule ...

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.

Dated : March 12, 2024 PER COURT :- 1.

The Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 25th January, 2024 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary)-Respondent No.2 herein, refusing to accord approval to the petitioner nos.1 and 2 to the post of Head Master. The proposal dated 6th November, 2023 has been turned down by respondent no.2 only for the reason that there is dispute in the Management.

2.

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the employees, who have been promoted as Head Master. Petitioner No.3 is the Management, which has multiple schools which are covered by Rule 41 of the MEPS Rules, 1981. Transfer can be on administrative grounds. The Education Officer has to consider the entire record and unless there is any serious grievance, Rule 41 is to be read in the backdrop of the reasons assigned

wp 2740.24.odt by the management for such approval. Internal squabbles cannot be a ground for turning down a proposal unless the squabbles reach the roots of the selection and appointment of a candidate.

3.

In view of the above, this Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 25th January, 2024, is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the proposal, strictly in accordance with the Rules applicable and the documents/records, which are necessary for scrutiny while considering grant of approvals to such proposals. Let this exercise be completed within 45 days from today.

( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) ...

aaa/-