← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/13697/2025disposed off

Surekha Sahadu Arote v. The Education Officer (Secondary) And ORS

2026-01-27Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge , Hon'Ble Shri Justice Abhay J. Mantri3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 13669 OF 2025 Digitally signed by VINA ARVIND KHADPE Date:

2026.02.03 10:24:05 +0530 Sakshi Sachin Kirve ....Petitioner

Versus

The Education officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Pune and Ors.

....Respondents VINA ARVIND KHADPE WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 13697 OF 2025 Surekha Sahadu Arote, ....Petitioner

Versus

The Education officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Pune and Ors.

....Respondents ---- Ms. Ankita Salvi a/w Mr. Aryan Deshmukh i/b Mr. Rajaram Deshmukh, Advocates for Petitioner in both matters. Mr. P. P. Kakade, Add.G.P. a/w Ms. Priyanka Chavan, AGP for State in both matters.

---- CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

DATE : 27th JANUARY, 2026 P.C. :- 1.

This is a motion for speaking to the minutes of the order dated 16th January, 2026.

2.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that both the Petitioners were transferred from the un-aided establishment to the fully aided establishment in 2020 and the

proposal was submitted on 10th August 2020. It is further stated that it is wrongly recorded in paragraph Nos. 1 and 2 that the Petitioners have been transferred from the un-aided establishment to the 20% aided establishment, instead of 100%.

3.

We have perused the pleadings and averments in the Petitions. Nowhere, the Petitioners have pleaded that both of them have been transferred to 100% grant-in-aid establishment. 4.

Reliance is placed on a communication dated 09.12.2002 from the Education Officer, Secondary Zilla Parishad, Pune addressed to the Secretary of the Namdeorao Mohol Vidya & Krida Pratishthan. The first Petitioner is working in the Swargavasi Baburao Rayrikar Vidyalaya Urwade, Moshi and the second Petitioner is working in Sinhgad Vidyalaya, Sangrun, Taluka Haveli, Dist. Pune.

5.

There are no pleadings and averments in the Petitions. The document which is shown to us dated 09.12.2002, is also not placed on record. In such circumstances, this motion for 'speaking to the minutes of the order' cannot be entertained.

6.

Liberty is granted to prefer a Review Petition, if desired.

7.

Motion for speaking to the minutes is disposed off. (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)