Trupti Mohan Lad v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary School Education And ORS

Digitally signed by GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD Date:

2025.02.13 12:36:49 +0530 GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1209 OF 2025 Trupti Mohan Lad ....Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

....Respondents ---- Mr. Kalpesh U. Patil for the Petitioner.

Ms. T.J. Kapre, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 7. Mr. Onkar Wable i/b. Mr. Milind Deshmukh for Respondent Nos.5 and 6.

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

DATE : 11th FEBRUARY, 2025 P.C. :- 1.

The Petitioner is the appointee who was inducted in service on Clock Hour basis, on 20th June, 2015. She has the qualifications of M.Sc. and B.Ed. and is eligible to be appointed. Her proposal is forwarded for the first time by the Management (undated) in 2022, after 7 years of the appointment of the Petitioner. The said proposal is pending since the Deputy Director of Education, Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur Mr. Mahesh Chothe has communicated to the Director of Education vide communication dated 13th August, 2024 that all necessary documents should be tendered by the Education Society and only thereafter, the proposal

could be scrutinized. The Management is aware of the said communication. Yet, the revised proposal is not tendered. 2.

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed off with a direction to the Management to submit the revised proposal, complete in all respects with all documents annexed to it, within a period of 30 days from today to the office of Respondent No.4. After due scrutiny and verification of the records, Respondent No.4 would proceed to deal with the proposal as per the procedure laid down in law. Let this exercise be completed within 60 days from today, provided the Management complies with the above directions and reworks on the proposal and tenders the proposal as per the directions of Respondent No.4, within three weeks from today. 3.

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the proposal.

4.

Insofar as the delay on the part of the Management in forwarding the proposal after 7 years of the appointment of the Petitioner, we are informed that the parties were before this Court in

an earlier round in a group of Petitions and by an order dated 13th September, 2021, the consent terms between the appointees and the Management were taken on record and the Management was directed to submit the proposal. It is in these circumstances, that we are not imposing costs on the Management for the delayed submission of the proposal.

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