Allowed

Sarvodaya Shikshan Sanstha v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Anr.

Bombay HC4 May 2016WP/5440/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench disposed of the writ petition challenging the rejection of a Shikshan Sevak appointment proposal by a minority institution. The court observed the issue was already decided in a related matter and quashed the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order; directed respondent to reconsider the appointment proposal within four weeks.

Sarvodaya Shikshan Sanstha Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

Sr.No. 917

¶2

WP 5440.16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.5440 OF 2016

¶5

Sarvodaya Shikshan Sanstha Versus The State of Maharashtra through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032 and anr.

¶6

..Petitioner

¶7

..Respondents

¶8

Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Molina P. Thakur, AGP for respondent No.1.

¶9

CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & RANJIT MORE, J J.

¶10

DATE : 4^th MAY, 2016.

¶11

P. C. :

¶12

Parties through their counsel.

¶13

By filing this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 19^th May, 2015, passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur, rejecting the proposal for approval to the appointment of Shri Santosh Shrishail Metri as Shikshan Sevak in the petitioner's institution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a minority institution. A certificate of the institution as minority institution is filed as “Exhibit A”.

¶14

Having considered the submissions made by learned

¶15

counsel for the parties and having gone through the averments made in the petition as also the judgment dated 2^nd September, 2013 passed by

¶16

Shubhada S Kadam 1/2

¶17

Sr.No. 917

¶18

WP 5440.16

¶19

the Division Bench in the case of Parbhani Education Society, Parbhani versus the State of Maharashtra in writ petition No.3707of 2013, we are of the view that the question involved in this petition has already been considered and decided by this Court vide order dated 31^st March, 2016 passed in the case of Vinod Laxman Shelkar and anr. versus the State of Maharashtra and anr. in writ petition No.2207 of 2016 . In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of the petition in the following terms:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

i) The impugned order is quashed and set aside;

¶22

ii) Respondent No.2 is directed to consider afresh the proposal submitted by the petitioner for approval to the appointment of Shri Santosh Shrishail Metri as Shikshan Sevak in the petitioner's institution in the light of the observations made hereinabove.

¶23

iii) Respondent No. 2 shall take decision as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

iv) The parties shall act upon a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Registry of this Court.

¶25

[RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶26

[SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.]

¶27

Shubhada S Kadam 2/2

Sarvodaya Shikshan Sanstha v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvodaya Shikshan Sanstha 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

Cases cited

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.

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