Partly allowed

Sudhir S/O Narayanrao Satone and Another v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of School Education and Sport, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC14 Sept 2021WP/3459/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the non-grant of approval for the petitioners' appointment as Assistant Teachers. The High Court held that the State Government should direct the Education Officer to link the petitioners' names and issue the necessary approval within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The respondent State Government directed to decide the pending proposal appointing the petitioners as Assistant Teachers within eight weeks.

Sudhir S/O Narayanrao Satone and Another Vs State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.No.3459.2021.odt

¶2

¶3

Judgment

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3459 OF 2021

¶6

1)Sudhir S/o Narayanrao Satone,
Aged about 31 years, Occ. - Service,
2)Ku. Archana D/o Rameshrao Kale,
Aged about – years, Occ. Service,
Both R/o. C/o. Sent John Madhyamik
Vidyalay (Marathi Medium),
Chitoda road, Borgaon Meghe,
Wardha.
…. PETITIONERS
 // VERSUS //
1)State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Department of School Education
and Sport, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2)Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Wardha.
3)New Adarsha Shikshan Sanstha,
Pulgaon, Tah. Deoli, Dist. Wardha,
Through its Secretary/President.
4)Sent John Madhyamik Vidyalay
(Marathi Medium), Chitoda road,
Borgaon Meghe, Wardha,
Through its Head Master.
…. RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Shri N. S. Warulkar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri A. S. Fulzele, Addl.G.P. for respondent No.1.

¶7

 CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
 ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

¶8

DATED: 14.09.2021

¶9

Judgment 2W.P.No.3459.2021.odt

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

¶11

1.Heard Shri Warulkar, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Shri A. S. Fulzele, learned Addl. G.P., who appears by waiving
notice for respondent No.1 and 2. There is no need to issue notice to
respondent Nos.3 and 4 as no relief has been claimed against them.

¶12

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶13

3.The issue involved in this petition is about grant of
approval to the appointments of the petitioners as Assistant Teachers.
The facts, as disclosed by the proposal dated 25.01.2021, show that as
per the letter dated 17.12.2018, the State Government had directed the
Education Officer to grant approval to the appointments of the
petitioners, but respondent No.2/Education Officer did not do so and
rather sent an adverse report to the State Government. These facts
also show that now a proposal has been sent directly to respondent
No.1 for grant of approval to the appointments of the petitioners, and
this proposal dated 25.01.2021 is still pending with the respondent
No.1.

¶14

4.We are of the view that by issuing suitable directions to the

¶15

respondent No.1, this petition can be disposed of.

¶16

Judgment

¶17

 3W.P.No.3459.2021.odt

¶18

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed .

¶19

6. The respondent No.1 is directed to decide the proposal

¶20

dated 25.01.2021, in accordance with law, as early as possible and in
any case within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order.

¶21

Rule accordingly. No costs.

¶22

(ANIL S. KILOR, J.)(SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.)

¶23

Kirtak

Sudhir S/O Narayanrao Satone and Another v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of School Education and Sport, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir S/O Narayanrao Satone and Another v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of School Education and Sport, Mumbai and Others

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

Premlata Kawduji Burange and Another Vs Sub Divisional Officer, Hinganghat

Wardha Zilla Contractor Kalyan Samiti, Wardha through President Kishor Manikchandra Mitakri Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Department of Public Work, Mumbai and Others

Ushabai Manohar Koche Vs State of Maharashtra, Medical Education and Drugs Dept. Mumbai and Others

Karulal S/O Parasram Rahangdale Vs Shri Saraswati Vidya Mandir, Amgaon, Gondia, Thr. Its President and Others

Vinod S/O Deokumar Guldekar Vs State of Maha. Thr. Secy., Dept. of Agri. Animal Hus. Dairy Dev. and Fisheries, Mumbai and Ors.

Nitin Gangadhar Meshram Vs Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd., Mumbai and Others