Santosh Maruti Jadhav v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary School Education And Sports Dept And ORS

1 2-WP-11529-2022.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11259 OF 2022 Santosh Maruti Jadhav ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

... Respondents .......

Mr. Sushant A. Khatate i/b Mr. Prashant Bhavake, for the Petitioner.

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

.......

YUGANDHARA SHARAD PATIL by YUGANDHARA SHARAD PATIL Date: 2024.02.06 15:47:20 +0530 CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & M.M.SATHAYE, JJ.

DATE : 2 FEBRUARY 2024 P.C.:

.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

Petitioner-Employee, currently working as Junior Clerk with Respondent No. 7 School run by Respondent No. 6 Management, is seeking direction to decide his pending approval with the Respondent No. 5 -Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states on instructions that Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 are supporting the cause of the Petitioner till today. We proceed on the basis of said statement.

2 2-WP-11529-2022.doc 3.

It is submitted that the Petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk in December, 2020 and has been working since then. It is further submitted that the Petitioner's proposal sent by Respondent Management on 10 February 2022 has not been decided yet and kept pending.

4.

In view of said pendency of the proposal, the Respondent No.5 - Education Officer is directed to communicate its objections / proposed grounds of rejection to the Respondent Educational Institute, if any, within a period of 3 weeks from today. The Respondent Educational Institute shall thereafter submit its explanation to the proposed objections, along with supporting material including caselaw, orders of this Court, government resolutions etc, if relied upon.

5.

Subject to other time bound directions, the Respondent/Education Officer is thereafter directed to decide the pending proposal of the Petitioner, within 8 weeks, by dealing with the explanation and material submitted by the Respondent/Educational Institute and pass a reasoned order. 6.

We have not expressed any opinion on 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 Officer decides to grant Petitioner's proposal as prayed,

3 2-WP-11529-2022.doc consequent order of allotting Shalarth ID shall follow and in that case, aforesaid procedure/directions will not apply. 7.

The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (M.M.SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

4 2-WP-11529-2022.doc