Disposed

Smt. Kavle Laxmi Narsimlu and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Anr.

Bombay HC4 May 2016WP/5371/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the Education Officer's order rejecting the appointment proposal for a Shikshan Sevak. The petitioners were directed to make good deficiencies or argue against them within two weeks, while being granted an exception for deficiency No.31 regarding minority institution status. The respondent was directed to pass a reasoned order within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned order. Petitioners directed to make good deficiencies or argue against them within two weeks. Respondent directed to pass reasoned order within eight weeks, excluding deficiency No.

Smt. Kavle Laxmi Narsimlu and Anr. Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

Sr.No.913

¶2

WP 5371.16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.5371 OF 2016

¶5

Smt. Kavle Laxmi Narsimlu and anr. Versus The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032 and anr.

¶6

..Petitioners

¶7

..Respondents

¶8

Mr. N. V. Bandivadekar along with Mr. Sagar Mane and Mr. Mandar Bagkar, advocates for the petitioners. Mrs. Molina P. Thakur, AGP for the State.

¶9

CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & RANJIT MORE, J J. DATE : 4^th MAY, 2016.

¶10

P. C. :

¶11

Parties through their counsel.

¶12

By filing this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 2^nd March, 2016, passed by the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad-Thane, rejecting the proposal for approval of the appointment of petitioner No.1 as Shikshan Sevak. As regards the reasons assigned in the rejection order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the authority has not given any opportunity to the petitioners to cure the deficiencies. He also submits that as regard deficiency No.31, the same is not applicable as the institution, in which, the petitioner No.1 is working is a minority institution. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the order dated 31^st March, 2016, passed by this Court in the case of Vinod

Shubhada S Kadam 1/2

Sr.No.913

WP 5371.16

Laxman Shelkar and anr. versus the State of Maharashtra and anr. in writ petition No.2207 of 2016 . Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as regards petitioner No.2 being a minority institution, a certificate (annexed at “Exhibit A”) has been filed. In the circumstances, the rejection of the proposal for approval on the deficiency No.31 cannot be sustained.

¶17

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, we are inclined to dispose of this petition by setting-aside the impugned order with further directions to respondent No.2 to give an opportunity to the petitioners to made good the deficiencies mentioned in the impugned order except the deficiency No.31. In regard to the deficiencies, the petitioners would be at liberty either to make good the deficiencies or to make submissions before the concerned authority that those deficiencies are not in fact the deficiencies. The 2^nd respondent shall consider the contentions as may be raised by the petitioners and pass a reasoned order as expeditiously as possible and within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The petitioners to make good the deficiencies within two weeks from today. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.

¶18

[RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶19

[SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.]

¶20

Shubhada S Kadam 2/2

Smt. Kavle Laxmi Narsimlu and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kavle Laxmi Narsimlu and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Chavan Dattajirao Namdeo Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Rupali Dipak Lakhan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri Rajendra Mohan Wabale and Anr. Vs the Director Directorate of Technical Education and Anr.

Dr. R. M. Haridas Vs the State of Maharashtra through Additional Chief Secretary and Ors.

Shri Mahendra Atmaram Kalekar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Anr.

Supreme Infrastructure India Ltd. Vs the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhiwandi Division and Ors.