Deepak Ananda Tepugade v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary Dept. Of School Education And ORS

TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Date: 2025.03.13 18:02:08 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1962 OF 2023 Deepak Ananda Tepugade ... Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

... Respondents ---- Mr.Chetan Patil with Mr.Bhushan Jadhav i/b. Mr.Mandar Bagkar for the Petitioner.

Mr.V.M.Mali, AGP for the Respondent -State.

---- CORAM :

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

DATE : 10TH MARCH, 2025 P.C. :- 1.

This is yet one more case wherein the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur, Shri Eknath Ambokar, has once again rejected a proposal after pointing out deficiencies to the Management and without granting an opportunity to enable the Management to remove/ cure the deficiencies. 2.

The impugned order is dated 30th November, 2022. 3.

The learned AGP submits that this is an old order and the Education Officer was not aware of the view of this Court as in

2022. Hence, he prays that in this matter cost may not be imposed. 4.

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is partly allowed.

5.

The impugned order dated 30th November, 2022 stands quashed and set aside. The six deficiencies pointed out in the impugned order shall be treated as a notice of deficiencies to the Management. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, Management shall ensure that the said deficiencies are cured and a revised proposal is tendered to the Competent Authority, within a period of 45 days. 6.

Since we are disposing off this matter without issuing notice, the Petitioner would serve a copy of this order on the Management, after obtaining the same from the official website of the Bombay High Court, expeditiously.

7.

The 45 days would commence from the date of receipt of the order.

8.

After the Management submits a revised proposal, Respondent No.3 would deal with the said proposal on its own

merits and by strictly following the due procedure laid down in the law, within a period of 45 days thereafter.

9.

If the proposal is rejected, of course with a reasoned order, the aggrieved party is at liberty to avail of a remedy that is permissible in law. If the proposal is accepted, further steps for grant of the Shalarth ID and payment of monetary benefits would be initiated by the Management as well as the Competent Authority, expeditiously.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)