Ganesh Devram Powar v. The State Of Maharashtra Throu. The Sec. School Education And Sports Dept And ORS

TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Date: 2025.07.03 19:39:39 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8407 OF 2025 Shri Ganesh Devram Powar ... Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

... Respondents ...

Mr.Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioner.

Mr.V.G.Badgujar, AGP for the Respondent -State. ...

CORAM

:

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & M. M. SATHAYE, JJ.

DATE :

2nd July, 2025 P.C.:- 1.

Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned AGP.

2.

The learned AGP is right in submitting that the advertisement was published in a practically unknown newspaper, 'Dainik Ambarnath Times'. The advertisement is vague and does not indicate any qualification or any reservation.

3.

Notwithstanding the above, the Education Officer (Secondary), Raigad Zilla Parishad, Alibag, District Raigad, vide the impugned order dated 22nd December, 2023, has rejected the proposals of eight institutions. 1/3

She has merely reproduced the names of the appointed employees and referred to certain Government Resolutions, and rejected the proposals despite pointing out the deficiencies.

4.

This Court has, time and again, observed in several orders that if the Education Officer desires to point out deficiencies in the proposals submitted by the respective managements, an opportunity to remove such deficiencies should be granted, and after a revised proposal is tendered, an order on merits, with reasons, should be passed. The impugned order, in the manner in which it is passed, cannot be sustained. 5.

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is partly allowed. 6.

The impugned order rejecting the proposal of Respondent No.6- Management, stands quashed and set aside. The objections raised to the extent of the Management, shall be removed by the said Management, and a revised proposal shall be tendered to the Office of Respondent No. 5, on or before 14th August, 2025. Thereafter, by following the due procedure, Respondent No.5 would deal with the revised proposal and pass a reasoned order, within a period of 60 days thereafter. If the proposal is rejected, the aggrieved party would be at liberty to avail of a remedy as is permissible in 2/3

law. If the proposal is granted, steps for granting Shalarth ID shall be initiated by the concerned parties by following the due procedure. 7.

The Petitioner shall serve a copy of this order, obtained from the official website of the High Court of Bombay, on the Respondent - Management, expeditiously.

(M. M. SATHAYE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) 3/3