Maharshi Karmavir Vithhal Ramaji Shinde Shikshan Sanstha, Phulewadi And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary, School Edu. And Sports Dept. And ORS

1 5 wp 12245-24.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12245 OF 2024 Maharshi Karmavir Vithhal Ramaji Shinde Shikshan Sanstha, Phulewadi, Kolhapur and Ors.

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

...Respondents

**** Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioners.

Ms. Pooja Joshi-Deshpande, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5/State. **** SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2024.09.09 15:35:16 +0530 CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.

DATE : 6 SEPTEMBER 2024 P.C. :

.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

Petitioner No. 3 (Santosh Nagojirao Patil) Employee working with Petitioner No. 2 School run by Petitioner No. 1 Education Institute are jointly challenging the order dated 23 February 2024 passed by Respondent No. 5 / Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur. By the said impugned order, approval to appointment of Petitioner No. 3 as Shikshan Sevak is rejected. 3.

Perused the impugned order which is admittedly passed without issuing show cause or hearing the Petitioners. Had an

2 5 wp 12245-24.doc opportunity been given, the Petitioners would have given appropriate and necessary explanation to reasons stated in impugned order for rejecting proposal. It has resulted in a situation where inquiry about the factual and other grounds of rejection are required to be done first time in this Court.

4.

In that view of the matter, we dispose of this petition by directing that the impugned order dated 23 February 2024 will be treated as notice to Petitioners of the proposed ground/s for rejection of Petitioner No. 3'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 Petitioners within a period of 3 weeks from today. 5.

The Petitioners 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.

6.

Thereafter within a period of 8 weeks, subject to other time bound directions, the Respondent Education Officer is directed to decide the Petitioner No. 3's proposal 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. The order will be passed keeping in mind the directions issued by this Court in Part II Clause A(i) to (iii) of the judgment in the matter of Nitin B.

3 5 wp 12245-24.doc Tadge Vs. State of Maharashtra 1.

7.

We have not expressed any opinion on the Petitioners' 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.

8.

If the decision is adverse to the Petitioners, it will be challenged before the Appellate Authority recently provided under Government Resolution dated 27 March 2024.

9.

The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (M.M. SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.) 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1116