Pravin Dnyandeo Shinde And ANR v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

930-WP-14169-2024.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14169 OF 2024 Pravin Dnyandeo Shinde & Anr.

... Petitioners

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

... Respondents **** Ms. Manisha Devkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. Ekta Patil i/b Mr. Prashant Hagare, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 & 6.

Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl. GP a/w Ms. Nisha Mehra, Advocates for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4.

**** by GAYATRI RAJENDRA SHIMPI Date: 2025.11.28 19:48:07 +0530 GAYATRI RAJENDRA SHIMPI CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

DATE : 26th NOVEMBER, 2025 P.C. :

1.

We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader.

2.

It is obvious that the only reason for the rejection of the proposal is that the outward number on the approval order (granted to the appointment of the Petitioners) does not match with the entries in the outward register of the department. The Government Resolution dated 6th March, 2024 prescribes a particular procedure, for verification of the records, while dealing with such cases. While passing the impugned order dated 13th August 2024, the concerned Education Officer lost sight of the said GR and the verification exercise was not conducted. Gayatri Shimpi

930-WP-14169-2024.odt 3.

The learned Additional GP submits, on instructions, that Respondent No. 4 would withdraw the impugned order dated 13th August, 2024 and thereafter, follow the prescribed procedure set out in the GR dated 6th March, 2024 and after due verification, pass a fresh reasoned order.

4.

We observe that Respondent No.4, if required, would call upon the management in the process of the verification for taking its assistance, if he finds that the management is required to express its view or represent itself on any specific issue on which the Education Officer would need the assistance of the management.

5.

By recording the above statements, this Petition is disposed off. Let the Education Officer, Respondent No.4, follow the GR dated 6th March, 2024 and arrive at a reasoned decision within a period of 90 days. We have given an extra timeline in this matter only to ensure that Respondent No.4 conducts the proceedings with promptitude, without any delay and ensures that our direction is complied with within 90 days from today.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) Gayatri Shimpi