Rosaline Agnel Dsouza v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary, School Edu. And Sprorts Dept. And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.18658 OF 2024 Rosaline Agnel Dsouza ....Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

....Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.18659 OF 2024 Reshma Valerian Vaz ....Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

....Respondents Mr. Prashant Bhavake, Advocate for the Petitioners. Ms. N.M. Mehra, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 - State. Mr. Utkarsh Desai, Advocate for Respondent No.6 and 7 in WP/18658/2024.

Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 6-State in WP/18659/2024.

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

DATE : 10th FEBRUARY, 2025 P.C. :-

1.

We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned AGP on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 5. With their assistance, we have gone through the record available and the GR dated 27th March, 2024 cited before us.

2.

Keeping in view the impugned order dated 9th May, 2024, we do not find that Respondent No.5 has raised any issue of deficiencies. He has come to a conclusion straight away, without assigning reasons as to why, the proposal cannot be granted. We are conscious of the judgment delivered by this Court [Coram: Nitin Jamdar (as his Lordship then was) and M.M. Sathaye, JJ.], in Nitin Bhika Tadge and Another versus State of Maharashtra and Others1 3.

The G.R. dated 27th March, 2024 has been issued pursuant to the above judgment delivered in Nitin Bhika Tadge and Another versus State of Maharashtra and Others (supra). A three members Committee is now chaired by Respondent No.4 which has to decide the appeals seeking to challenge orders passed by Respondent No.5, as like the impugned order.

2024 SCC Online Bom 1116

4.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that if the Petitioners tender an appeal, the Concerned Authority be directed to decide the appeal expeditiously.

5.

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed off. If the Petitioners or the management prefers an appeal before Respondent No.4, in the light of the G.R. dated 27th March, 2024, we would expect the Committee headed by Respondent No.4 to consider the said appeal by following the due procedure laid down in law. By granting adequate opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders, a reasoned order would be passed dealing with all contentions of the litigating parties and judgments cited. This exercise be completed as expeditiously as possible though the G.R. prescribes a period of six months. We would appreciate if this exercise is completed prior to the said timeline. 6.

Since the Petitioners is before this Court on account of the filing of this Petition, the time spent by the Petitioners in this Court, shall be excused, provided the Petitioners tenders the appeal within 21days.

7.

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. Only to avoid further litigation, we observe that if the Committee grants approval to the Petitioners, the procedure required to be followed for grant of Shalarth ID, shall be undertaken by the concerned and we expect that the Shalarth ID to be granted within a stipulated period.

8.

Since the Petitioners apprehends termination and considering the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in St Ulai High School vs. Devendraprasad Jagannath Singh, 2007

(1) Mh.L.J. 597, we direct the employer not to terminate the Petitioners only for the reason that they do not have an approval. (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)