Disposed¶23

Sudhirkumar Vyankatrao v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Bombay HC6 Aug 2024WP/1009/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Approval of appointment; Government Resolution dated 23.06.2017; objective scrutiny by Education Officer/Deputy Director of Education; rejection solely on procedural non-compliance untenable; quashing of order dated 05.12.2022; reconsideration on merits within four weeks; Shaikh Jaweria Khadarsab, Writ Petition No. 13150 of 2022, order dated 10.06.2024; Maharashtra school education; Latur Division; neutral citation 2024:BHC-AUG:17361-DB.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 05.12.2022 quashed; Respondent No. 3/Deputy Director of Education directed to reconsider the petitioner's proposal for grant of approval to his appointment on its own merits, expeditiously and in any case within four (04) weeks, without rejecting it on the grounds mentioned in the impugned order. ¶23

Sudhirkumar Vyankatrao Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's proposal seeking approval to his appointment could be rejected solely on the ground that the procedure contemplated by the Government Resolution dated 23.06.2017 was not followed.

¶21

Court's answer

Consistent with the Court's earlier order dated 10.06.2024 in Writ Petition No. 13150 of 2022 (Shaikh Jaweria Khadarsab), the Education Officer/Deputy Director of Education has to conduct objective scrutiny of the proposal and cannot reject it only on the ground that the procedure contemplated by the Government Resolution was not followed.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

In that view, the petition is disposed of by quashing the impugned order dated 05.12.2022 and directing Respondent No. 3/Deputy Director of Education to reconsider the petitioner's proposal for grant of approval to his appointment on its own merits.

¶23

Key takeaways

The reconsideration decision shall be taken as expeditiously as possible and in any case within four (04) weeks, and shall not be rejected on the grounds mentioned in the impugned order.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Division Bench (Mangesh S. Patil & Shailesh P. Brahme, JJ.), 06.08.2024 — Approval of appointment; rejection solely for non-compliance with Government Resolution dated 23.06.2017 impermissible. The petitioner's proposal seeking approval to his appointment was rejected by the Deputy Director of Education, Latur Division (order dated 05.12.2022) only on the ground that the procedure contemplated by the Government Resolution dated 23.06.2017 was not followed. Following its earlier order dated 10.06.2024 in Writ Petition No. 13150 of 2022 (Shaikh Jaweria Khadarsab Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others), the Court held that the Education Officer/Deputy Director of Education must conduct objective scrutiny of the proposal and cannot reject it only for non-adherence to the GR procedure. The impugned order was quashed and Respondent No. 3 was directed to reconsider the proposal on its own merits within four weeks, without rejecting it on the grounds in the impugned order. Neutral citation: 2024:BHC-AUG:17361-DB.

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:17361-DB

¶2

1 949(i).WP-1009-2023.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

Writ Petition No. 1009 / 2023

¶5

Sudhirkumar Vyankatrao,

¶6

Age : 30 years, Occu. Service R/o Valandi, Tq. Deoni,

¶7

Dist. Latur. ...Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Maharashtra Through it’s Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶10

The Director of Education (Secondary), Maharashtra State, Pune.

¶11

The Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Latur Division, Latur.

¶12

The Secretary, Lok Jagruti Shikshan Sanstha, Valandi, Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur.

¶13

The Head Master, Vyankatesh Secondary and Higher Secondary Vidyalaya Valandi, Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur. . .Respondents

¶14

_ _ _ Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Dayanand S. Mali A.G.P. for Respondents/State : Mr. S.P. Joshi

¶15

2 949(i).WP-1009-2023.doc

¶16

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.

¶17

DATE : 06 AUGUST 2024

¶18

E 2024

¶19

PER COURT :

¶20

. Heard.

¶21

Petitioner’s proposal seeking approval to his appointment came to be rejected by the respondent No. 3/Deputy Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur vide impugned order dated 05.12.2022 only on the ground that the procedure as contemplated by the Government Resolution dated 23.06.2017 was not followed.

¶22

We have already taken a view by order dated 10.06.2024 in Writ Petition No. 13150 of 2022 in the matter of Shaikh Jaweria Khadarsab Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others that the Education Officer/Deputy Director of Education has to conduct objective scrutiny of the proposal and it cannot be rejected only on the ground that procedure as contemplated by the Government Resolution was not followed.

¶23

In that view of the matter, we dispose of the petition by quashing the impugned order dated 05.12.2022 and directing the respondent No. 3/Deputy Director of Education to reconsider the

¶24

3 949(i).WP-1009-2023.doc

¶25

proposal of the petitioner for grant of approval to his appointment on its own merits. The decision shall be taken as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of four (04) weeks from today. However, same shall not be rejected on the grounds mentioned in the impugned order.

¶26

SHAILESH P. BRAHME MANGESH S. PATIL JUDGE JUDGE

¶27

N ajeeb ..

Sudhirkumar Vyankatrao v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhirkumar Vyankatrao v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashmi Suresh Thakur Vs Education Officer Primary Zilla Parishad Jalgaon

Pride Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Chh. Sambhajinagar through Its Authorized Signatory Mohammad Hares Siddiqui Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Public Works Department and Others

Gaurav Sanjay Thakur Vs Schedule Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee through Its Member Secretary

Ravindra Dilip Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Another

Viraj Sahebrao Rajput Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sheela Ravindra Khadse Vs Dr. Ravindra Shankarrao Khadse