Savita Amit Gujar vs Deputy Director of Education Pune Division and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Savita Amit Gujar vs Deputy Director of Education Pune Division and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned orders treated as having lost their efficacy; Management permitted/directed to file corrected proposals to Respondent No.1 within 30 days; Respondent No.1 to reconsider the revised proposals per applicable Rules and Policies and pass reasoned orders within 60 days; writ petitions disposed of with these directions.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned rejection orders, founded on defective dates of appointment in the Management's proposals (which indicated appointment during the recruitment ban), can survive where the Management concedes the error and seeks to file corrected proposals.

Court's answer

The impugned orders are treated as having lost their efficacy, since the proposals contain several defects including defective dates of appointment.

Ratio / Principle

The Management is directed to submit proper proposals to Respondent No.1 within 30 days, ensuring there are no defects in the proposals.

Key takeaways

If defects recur and the matter is brought back to the Court by an aggrieved party, the Court would impose heavy costs on the Management, to be donated to the State Government.obiter¶36
Respondent No.1 is to consider the revised proposals strictly in accordance with the applicable Rules and Policies and pass reasoned orders within 60 days of receipt of the proposals.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ravindra V. Ghuge & Gautam A. Ankhad, JJ.), common order dated 16th July 2025 disposing Writ Petition No. 1235 of 2025 (Savita Amit Gujar v. Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division) and Writ Petition No. 19152 of 2024 (Reshma Tulshiram Dhadve v. Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division). Petitioners were appointed between 2012 and 2017, prior to the State Government's ban on recruitment; their proposals were rejected because defective dates inserted by the Management indicated appointment during the ban period. The Management admitted the blunder and sought leave to correct the proposals. Held: the impugned orders are treated as having lost their efficacy; the Management was directed to submit defect-free proposals to Respondent No.1 within 30 days, with a warning that any recurrence would attract heavy costs payable to the State Government; Respondent No.1 was directed to consider the revised proposals strictly in accordance with the applicable Rules and Policies and pass reasoned orders within 60 days of receipt. Writ petitions disposed of. No statute or precedent was discussed in the judgment.

(920-92)-WP-1235-2025-(C).odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(920) WRIT PETITION NO. 1235 OF 2025

Digitally signed SUNNY by SUNNYANKUSHRAO ANKUSHRAO THOTE THOTE Date: 2025.07.17 10:05:27 +0530

Savita Amit Gujar ...Petitioner

Versus

Deputy Director of Education Pune Division And Ors.

...Respondents

AND

(92) WRIT PETITION NO. 19152 OF 2024

Reshma Tulshiram Dhadve ...Petitioner

Versus

Deputy Director of Education Pune Division And Ors. ...Respondents

Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioners.

Ms. Priyanka Chavan, AGP for the Respondent/State in WP/1235/2025.

Mr. S.P. Kamble, AGP for the Respondent/State in WP/19152/2024. Mr. Sachin Hande a/w Ms. Poonam Pal, Advocate for Respondent No.3 & 4.

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE

&

GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ.

DATE : 16^th JULY, 2025

P.C. :-

1. The learned AGPs have strenuously pointed out that the

impugned orders in these matters have been passed on merits.

1 of 4

SUNNY THOTE

(920-92)-WP-1235-2025-(C).odt

These are peculiar cases wherein the Management concedes that they have committed a blunder in mentioning the dates of appointment of the Petitioners and various other defective dates in the proposals forwarded to the Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division, Pune. As a consequence of such defective proposals, rejection of the proposals was a fait accompli .

The learned Advocate for the Petitioners fairly submits that on the one hand, the Petitioners have been affected by the defective proposals sent by the Management and on the other hand, the reasons mentioned in the impugned orders are in relation to such defects committed by the Management. The appointments of these Petitioners took place between 2012 to 2017, much prior to the ban on recruitment imposed by the State Government. Since the defective dates indicate that these Petitioners were appointed during the ban period, the proposals have been rejected.

The learned Advocate for the Management submits with regret and apology that it is the mistake of the Management which has led to impugned orders and prays that the Management

2 of 4

SUNNY THOTE

(920-92)-WP-1235-2025-(C).odt

be granted an opportunity to correct the proposals and file revised proposals within 30 days from today.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders will be treated as having lost their efficacy, since the proposals contain several defects including defective dates of appointment.

We direct the Management to submit proper proposals to Respondent No.1 within 30 days from today, by ensuring that there will not be defects in the proposals. If this happens once again, and the matter is brought to this Court by any aggrieved party, we would be constrained to impose heavy costs on the Management and such amount would be donated to the State Government.

After the revised proposals are filed by the Management, Respondent No.1 would consider the proposals strictly in accordance with the Rules and Policies applicable and, thereafter, pass reasoned orders within 60 days of the receipt of the proposals.

3 of 4

SUNNY THOTE

(920-92)-WP-1235-2025-(C).odt

With the above directions, these Writ Petitions are

disposed off .

(GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.)

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

4 of 4

SUNNY THOTE