Sanket Aakaram Kavade v. The Dy. Director Of Education ( Pune Division) , Pune And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SONALI MILIND PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4702 OF 2026 SONALI MILIND PATIL Date: 2026.05.04 18:59:59 +0530 Sanket Aakaram Kavade ....Petitioner

Versus

The Dy. Director of Education (Pune Division), Pune & Ors.

....Respondents Mr. Saurabh Pakale a/w. Mr. Nilesh Desai i/b. Ms. Padmaja Malgaonkar, for the Petitioner.

Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl. GP a/w. Ms. P. M. Joshi- Deshpande, AGP for the Respondent, State.

Mr. S. V. Gavand, for Respondent No.2, Zilla Parishad, Pune. CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

DATE : 30th APRIL, 2026 P.C.:

1.

The learned Advocate Shri Gavand, who is on the Panel of the Pune Zilla Parishad, is present in the Court Hall. Considering that this Petition is filed purely for seeking directions, we requested him to cause his appearance on behalf of the Zilla Parishad. It is in these circumstances that he has appeared in the matter.

2.

The Petitioner's proposal forwarded by the Management seeking approval to his appointment, is pending adjudication with Respondent No.2. The learned Additional Government Pleader submits that the pending proposal would be decided on its own merits, after conducting a meticulous verification and scrutiny, within a timeline as this Court may grant. 3.

In view of the above, this Petition is disposed off with the following directions:

a) The second Respondent would make a preliminary scrutiny of the said proposal on or before 15/05/2026.

b) After scrutiny, if he notices any deficiencies, he would issue a notice to the Management on their email address and communicate the deficiencies within 7 days.

c) Thereafter, the Management would be at liberty to tender a revised proposal, after removal of all deficiencies, within a period of 21 days.

d) After the second Respondent receives the revised proposal, a proper scrutiny and verification in accordance with the Rules, Policies and the Government Resolutions as may be applicable, shall be carried out and a reasoned order on the proposal would be passed within a period of 30 days.

4.

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion upon the pending proposal and the concerned authority would be at liberty to deal with the proposal on its merits. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)