Rahul Namdeo Sanap And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Another

2024:BHC-AUG:22159-DB 942 WP 10285 24.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10285 OF 2024 1) Rahul s/o Namdeo Sanap 2) Kiran s/o Govind Kale 3) Pranita d/o Pandharinath Chole ...

Petitioners

VERSUS

1) The State of Maharashtra 2) The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Beed.

...

Respondents ...

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. O.B. Boinwad h/f Mr. Barlinge Sudhir Raghunath A.G.P. for Respondents : Mrs. V.N. Patil-Jadhav

CORAM

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

DATE : 20.09.2024 PER COURT :

Heard.

2.

Petitioners' proposals seeking approval to their appointment came to be rejected by respondent No.2 - The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Beed vide communication dated 02.11.2023 only on the ground that the procedure as contemplated by the Government Resolutions dated 23.06.2017 and 07.02.2019 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.

1/2

942 WP 10285 24.odt 4.

In that view of the matter, we dispose of the petition by quashing the communications dated 02.11.2023 and directing the respondent No.2Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Beed, to reconsider the proposals of the petitioners for grant of approval to their appointment on their 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, the same shall not be rejected on the grounds mentioned in the impugned communications.

( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) mkd/- 2/2