Amol Mahadev Naik v. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, School Edu. And Sports Dept. And ORS

Digitally signed by ANANT KRISHNA NAIK Date:

2024.09.23 12:14:34 +0530 ANANT KRISHNA NAIK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12465 OF 2024 Amol Mahadev Naik

...Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

...Respondents

Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioner.

Mr. B. V. Samant, Addl. GP a/w. Ms T. J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 Mr. Utkarsh Desai for the Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & M. M. SATHAYE, JJ.

DATED : 20 SEPTEMBER 2024 P.C.:

.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

Petitioner/ employee working with Respondent No. 7 School run by Respondent No. 6 Educational Institute, is challenging the Order dated 8 September 2022 passed by Respondent No. 5 / Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Raigad, Alibaug. By said impugned Order, the approval for Petitioner's appointment as Junior Clerk is rejected.

1/3

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 6 & 7 (Management) states that there is no internal dispute in the Management and they are supporting the cause of the Petitioner. 4.

Perused the impugned Order, which is admittedly passed by simply listing shortfalls, but without any show cause notice / hearing the Petitioner or Respondent Management. It has resulted in a situation where inquiry about the grounds of rejection 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 8 September 2022 will be treated as notice to Respondent / Educational Institute of the proposed ground/s for rejection 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.

6.

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 2/3

proposal thereafter within a period of 8 weeks, 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. 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. Tadge Vs. State of Maharashtra 1. 7.

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. 8.

If the decision is adverse to the Petitioner, 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 3/3