In a writ petition for service appointment approval, the High Court directed respondents to decide the pending proposal within eight weeks while reserving judgment on merits.
Direction to respondents 2 and 3 to decide pending petiitoners appointment proposal within eight weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1613.19wp
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1613 OF 2019
Smita d/o Sharad Naik,
Age: 27 years, Occ: Service,
R/o. Near I.T.I. College,
Ahmednagar.
..PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra Department of School Education and Sports, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar.
3. The Deputy Director of Education, Pune Region, Pune.
4.Marathi Mission,
M.M. Polytechnic Holyoke Bungalow,
Clarabruce Girls High School,
Behind M.M. Book Shop, Station
Road, Ahmednagar
Through its Chairman
Shri. D.G. Bambal...RESPONDENTS
Mr Santosh S. Jadhavar, Advocate for petitioner;
Mr A.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondent/State
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE
AND
S.M.GAVHANE, JJ.
DATE : 21st FEBRUARY, 2019
ORAL ORDER :
Heard Mr. Jadhavar, learned Counsel
1613.19wp
(2)
appearing for the petitioner.
2.Considering limited grievance raised in
the petition, we are of the opinion that the
petition can be disposed of at admission stage
itself by issuing appropriate directions to the
respondents.
3.It is submitted by learned Counsel for the
petitioner that as the petitioner was holding due qualification, he was appointed by order dated 1st June, 2014 on the post of Shikshan Sevak by
respondent No. 4 - institute.Itisthen
submitted that respondent No. 4 is a minority
institute. The proposal for grant of approval to
the appointment is submitted to respondent No.2
Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Ahmednagar and respondent No. 3 Deputy Director of
Education, Pune Region, Pune for grant of approval
to the appointment of the petitioner on 28th
September, 2018. He then submitted that reminder
was also submitted to these authorities on 10th
January, 2019, as the proposal is pending since
1613.19wp
(3)
long, the petitioner prays for directions to decide
the proposal.
4.This being a limited grievance, we direct
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to decide the proposal
submitted to them either on 28th September, 2018 or
by way of reminder dated 10th January, 2019 as
early as possible and preferably within eight (8)
weeks from the date of this order. We further make
it clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the merit of the proposal and we leave
the issue for consideration by the authorities.
Needless to state that the authorities to decide
the proposal considering various Government
circulars or position of law reflected in the
judicial decisions by the higher forums like, this
Court or the Hon'ble the Apex Court.
5.With these directions, the petition is
disposed of.
( S.M.GAVHANE ) (PRASANNA B. VARALE) JUDGE JUDGE
Tupe
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner with due qualifications was correctly appointed and granted approval pending since September 2018.
Whether authorities are directed to decide the pending proposal within specified time.
Smita d/o Sharad Naik
The State of Maharashtra Department of School Education and Sports
Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad Ahmednagar
Deputy Director of Education Pune Region
Marathi Mission
Prashanna B. Varale
S.M. Gavhane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court