Anita Pravin Ghadge v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. G.P. And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8341 OF 2025 Mrs. Anita Pravin Ghadge ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

... Respondents ------ Mr. Satyajeet A. Rajeshirke a/w. Mr. Rahul S. Rane for the Petitioner. Mrs. S.N. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2-State. Mr. Pankaj Deokar for the Respondent No.3.

------ Coram : M. S. Karnik & Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ.

Date : 17th November 2025.

P. C. :

1.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.

2.

The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 30th September 2022 issued by the Respondent No.3-the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Satara, thereby rejecting the proposal for approval to the appointment of the Petitioner as 'Shikshan Sevak' for the period from 2nd February 2015 to 1st February 2018. The Petitioner prays that she should be granted approval from the date of appointment. 1 of

3.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 30th September 2022, which is at page 50 of the paper-book, was passed by the Respondent No.3-the Education Officer, without affording any opportunity to cure/explain the deficiencies mentioned therein. 4.

We have requested Mr. Deokar to appear on behalf of the Respondent No.3-the Education Officer (Primary), since he is on the panel of Zilla Parishad, Satara. Mr Deokar requested some time to take instructions.

5.

However, considering the nature of the impugned order, it may not be necessary to take instructions from the Respondent No.3-the Education Officer (Primary). In our opinion, an opportunity should have been given to the Management to cure the deficiencies. 6.

As the impugned order is passed in breach of the principles of natural justice, the impugned order be treated as show cause notice to the Petitioner and the Respondent Nos.4 & 5-Management & School. 7.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 have been served by the Advocates notice. In our opinion, formal notice to the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 is not necessary as the proposal for approval of the Petitioner was submitted by the Respondent Nos.4 & 5.

8.

The Respondent Nos.4 & 5 - Management & School to cure / 2 of

explain the deficiencies within a period of three weeks from today. 9.

The Respondent No.3-Education Officer (Primary) to decide the proposal afresh and in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from from today.

10.

Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.

[ Ajit B. Kadethankar, J. ] [ M. S. Karnik, J. ] by OMKAR SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN Date:

2025.11.18 16:02:48 +0530 OMKAR SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN 3 of