Rachavva Shadakshari Vibhute v. The State Of Maharashtra Throu. Govt Pleader And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10022 OF 2025 Rachavva Shadakshari Vibhute ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors.
... Respondents ------ Mr. Sameer Kumbhakoni for the Petitioner.
Ms. T. J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State. ------ Coram : M. S. Karnik & Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ.
Date : December 19, 2025.
P. C. :
1.
Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
2.
Our attention is invited to the order dated 8th January 2024, passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 7892 of 2023 which reads thus:
"1.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner/Employee working as a Shikshan Sevak, is seeking direction to decide her pending approval with the Respondent No. 4- Education Oicer, Zilla Parishad, Solapur. The Petitioner states that though the Respondent No.5 (Educational Institute) is not a Co-Petitioner with her, it is supporting the cause of the Petitioner till today. We proceed on the basis of said statement. 1 of
3. In view of the pending proposal, we direct the Respondent /Education Oicer to communicate its proposed grounds of rejection of approval to the Respondent/ Educational Institute within a period of 3 weeks from today. The Respondent/Educational Institute shall thereafter submit its explanation to the proposed grounds of rejection, along with supporting material and case laws/orders of this Court, if relied upon.
4. The Respondent/Education Oicer is directed to decide the pending proposal by dealing with the explanation given by the Respondent/Educational Institute as also dealing with case law/orders of this Court, by passing a reasoned order within a period of 8 weeks from the receipt of explanation from Respondent/Educational Institute, subject to other time bound directions and pressing public duty, if any.
5. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the Petitioner's proposal and the same shall be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. Needless to mention that if the Respondent/Education Oicer proceeds to grant approval, the aforesaid procedure/directions will not apply.
6. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms." 3.
Thereafter, a detailed explanation was submitted by the Management in terms of the orders passed by this Court, which was received by the Education Oicer (Secondary) on 29th January 2024. However, by the impugned order dated 1st August 2024, the Education Oicer has rejected the proposal on the grounds mentioned therein. It is seen that the proposal has been rejected mainly on the ground that the documents in support of the Petitioner's case were not furnished. 4.
In our opinion, although an opportunity was granted to the Management pursuant to the earlier order of this Court, the present Petition has been iled by the Petitioner-Assistant Teacher seeking 2 of
approval as Shikshan Sevak. It was incumbent upon the Management, which forwarded the proposal, to annex the necessary documents in support thereof.
5.
In such view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the communication dated 1st August 2024 deserves to be set aside. The impugned order dated 1st August 2024 shall be treated as a show cause notice to the Petitioner.
6.
The Management shall cure and/or explain the deiciencies mentioned in the impugned order within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order. Upon submission of such representation, the Education Oicer shall decide the proposal afresh, in accordance with law and in terms of the earlier orders passed by this Court, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. If the proposal is approved, the Shalarth ID be issued expeditiously. 7.
Writ Petition stands disposed of.
[ Ajit B. Kadethankar, J. ] [ M. S. Karnik, J. ] Digitally signed by TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Date:
2025.12.23 09:46:34 +0530 TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO 3 of