Prakash Girdharilal Keswani v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. The Secretary And ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:9244-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 936 WRIT PETITION NO. 2121 OF 2026 UJJWALA NARAYAN GHULE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Mr. V.G. Salgare, Advocate for petitioner Mr. S.B. Narwade, AGP for State ...

CORAM :

SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

DATE :

26th FEBRUARY, 2026 ORDER :

.

Present petition has been filed for directions to respondent authorities to include the name of petitioner in Shalarth Pranali. It appears that petitioner is serving as Under Graduate Assistant Teacher and her appointment has been approved and thereafter proposal was sent for inclusion of her name in Shalarth Pranali, however, by communication dated 05.09.2024 it came to be rejected on the ground of defects in the proposal. It appears that thereafter by communication dated

936_WP_2121_2026 30.05.2025 the Management has removed those defects and re-submitted the proposal to Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and thereafter it is pending.

Heard learned Advocate Mr. V.G. Salgare for petitioner and learned AGP Mr. S.B. Narwade for respondents/State. The facts are not much in dispute. The proposal for inclusion of name of petitioner in Shalarth Pranali appears to have been rejected on 05.09.2024 and the said communication is addressed by Deputy Educational Inspector attached to the office of Deputy Director of Education, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The communication does not say that the decision was taken by Deputy Director of Education and he is merely communicating the same. Deputy Educational Inspector is not the appropriate authority to decide the proposal for inclusion of name of any Assistant Teacher or non teaching staff in Shalarth Pranali and, therefore, the order dated 05.09.

2024 appears to be passed by an officer who is non authorized, however, the said letter can be taken as mere communication of defects in the proposal and now by communication dated 30.05.2025 it appears that those defects have been removed. Under such circumstance, we dispose of the petition by directing respondent No.

936_WP_2121_2026 30.05.2025 or getting the said proposal removed from defects to respondent No.4 within a period of two weeks from today. Thereafter respondent No.4 to decide the said proposal within a period of eight weeks thereafter. ( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) agd