Disposed

Smt. Savita Hindurao Sathe v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Nov 2023WP/2435/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court directed the State of Maharashtra to decide a proposal regarding the petitioner's appointment as a Shikshan Sevak within six weeks and to enter her details in the Shalarth System if approved within four weeks, dismissing any further delay.

What did the court decide?

Decision of appointment proposal directed within six weeks; entry in Shalarth System and allotment of ID directed within four weeks if approved.

Smt. Savita Hindurao Sathe Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

502-wp-2435-2023.doc

¶2

Sayyed

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2435 OF 2023

¶5

Smt. Savita Hindurao Sathe

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra And Ors.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

********

¶11

Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Shruti D. Vyas, AGP a/w Ms. P. N. Diwan, AGP for Respondents
Nos.1 to 5 (State).

¶13

********

¶14

CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI,

¶15

JITENDRA JAIN, J.J.

¶16

Date : 2nd NOVEMBER 2023.

¶17

P.C.

¶18

. Not on board, taken on production board.

¶19

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned AGP for

¶20

Respondent nos.1 to 5. Issue notice to Respondent Nos.6 and 7. The

¶21

limited relief as prayed for in the petition is against Respondent No.5.

¶22

3.Pursuant to an advertisement published in the newspaper by
Respondent No.6 for the posts of Shikshan Sevak at Respondent No.7
Secondary School, the Petitioner applied and was appointed for the said
post. The Respondent No.7 submitted proposal dated 24th August 2018
for approval of the Petitioner’s appointment to Respondent No.5.

¶23

However till date, the Respondent No.5 has not taken any decision on

¶24

1 of 2

¶25

502-wp-2435-2023.doc

¶26

Sayyed

¶27

the said proposal submitted by Respondent Nos.6 and 7. It is with such
grievance this backdrop that the present Petition is filed.

¶28

4.After hearing the parties, we are of the opinion that
Respondent No.5 is directed to decide the proposal dated 24th August
2018, as made by Respondent Nos.6 and 7 seeking approval to the
appointment of the Petitioner to the post of Shikshan Sevak, in
accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within
a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶29

5.We further direct that in case the approval to the appointment
of the Petitioner is granted, name of the Petitioner shall be entered in
“Shalarth System” by Respondent No. 4 - Deputy Director of Education
and the Petitioner shall be allotted Shalarth ID and all consequential
benefits within a period of four weeks from the date of the approval.

¶30

6. Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶31

[JITENDRA JAIN, J.]

¶32

 [G. S. KULKARNI, J.]

¶33

(Order is corrected as per speaking to the minutes of the order dated 10 November
2023)

¶34

2 of 2

Smt. Savita Hindurao Sathe v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savita Hindurao Sathe v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept. and Ors.

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

Govinda Ramesh Patil Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Ors.

Hemant Kashinath Gavali Vs State of Maharashtra through Prinicipal Secretary

Mr. Ajit Shankar Dhirde Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Smt. Ansari Yasmin Nasim Ahmed Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sadaf Imamoddin Masood Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Santosh Shankarrao Nisalkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary School Education and Ors.