Sanjivani Ananda Chougule v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary School Education Dept. And ORS

1 wp 7430-22.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7430 OF 2022 Sanjivani Ananda Chougule

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

...Respondents

**** Mr. Vinayak Kumbhar a/w Rajendra Khaire i/b Ashwini Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner.

Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for Respondent No. 1.

Mr. Sagar Mane for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. **** SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2024.03.18 12:34:21 +0530 CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.

DATE : 12 MARCH 2024 P.C. :

.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

The Petitioner/employee working with Respondent No. 4 School run by Respondent No. 3 Educational Institute, is challenging the order dated 28 September 2021 passed by Respondent No. 2 / Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli. By the said impugned order, the approval for the Petitioner's appointment as Shikshan Sevak is returned. The learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 states that there is no internal dispute in the Management Trust / Institute and they are supporting the cause

2 wp 7430-22.doc of the Petitioner.

3.

It is submitted that the impugned order is passed without any show cause notice and had an opportunity been given, the Petitioner / Respondent Management would have given appropriate and necessary explanation to reasons stated in impugned order for return of proposal.

4.

Perused the impugned order. It has resulted in a situation where inquiry about the grounds of return are required to be done first time in this Court.

5.

In that view of the matter, we dispose of this petition by directing that the impugned order dated 28 September 2021 will be treated as notice to Respondent / Educational Institute of the proposed ground/s for return of Petitioner's proposal, which stands restored. If there are any other grounds on which the Respondent Education Officer intends to return or reject the proposal, he is directed to communicate the same to the Respondent/Educational Institute within a period of 3 weeks from today. 5.

The Respondent Educational Institute shall thereafter submit its explanation to the proposed grounds, along with supporting material including government resolutions, case laws / orders of this Court etc. if relied upon. The Respondent Education Officer is directed to decide the proposal thereafter within a period of 8 weeks,

3 wp 7430-22.doc by dealing with the explanation given by the Educational Institute as also dealing with case law/orders of this Court, by passing a reasoned order, subject to other time bound directions. 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 proceeds to grant proposal as prayed, consequent benefits and orders will follow, and in that case, the aforesaid procedure/directions will not apply.

7.

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