Navnath Jagannath Yadav v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

2024:BHC-AUG:17223-DB 1 WP / 7698 / 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 905 WRIT PETITION NO. 7698 OF 2024 NAVNATH JAGANNATH YADAV

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for petitioner : Mr. S.R. Kedar AGP for the respondent - State : Mr.S.R. Yadav-Lonikar Advocate for respondents no. 4 and 5 : Mr. Aniket S. Avhad ...

CORAM

: MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.

DATE : 07 AUGUST 2024 ORAL ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :

Heard.

2.

Learned advocate Mr. Avhad submits that he has instructions to appear on behalf of respondents no. 4 and 5. 3.

We have heard both the sides.

4.

The petitioner is challenging the order passed by respondent no. 3 - Education Officer (Secondary) (Exhibit - E) whereby by pointing out several points / shortcomings in the proposal forwarded by the management for grant of approval, the Education Officer has reufsed to grant approval. Obviously, these are the queries which ought to have been complied with by the management. Its failure has resulted in the disapproval. The petitioner cannot be made to

2 WP / 7698 / 2024 suffer for the lapses on the part of the management. It is merely a matter of grant of approval to the appointment. The Education Officer can be directed to reconsider the proposal, if the management is ready to remove the shortcomings pointed out.

5.

Learned advocate for respondents no. 4 and 5 also, on instructions, submits that the management would comply with the shortcomings noted by the Education Officer in the impugned communication.

6.

In light of above, we allow the writ petition partly. 7.

The impugned order is quashed and set aside.

8.

The management - respondents no. 4 and 5 shall submit a fresh proposal duly complying with the shortcomings pointed out in the impugned communication, as expeditiously as possible and in any case within four (4) weeks and the Education Officer (Secondary) shall decide the proposal within four (4) weeks thereafter. 9.

All the issues are kept open.

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGE arp/