Dipak Vijay Rathod vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Dipak Vijay Rathod vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 13th November, 2023 set aside (recorded as withdrawn); Management/Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to tender a revised proposal removing the 18 deficiencies to Respondent No.5 within 15 days; Education Officer to pass a reasoned order within 30 days of receiving the revised proposal; upon approval, Shalarth I.D. to be granted expeditiously to commence salary payment.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order of the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad Sindhudurg, rejecting the Management's proposal after recording 18 deficiencies without granting an opportunity to remove those deficiencies, could stand.

Court's answer

In view of the learned AGP's statement that the 18 deficiencies be treated as an intimation to the Management and time granted to remove them, the Court records that the impugned order, having stood withdrawn, stands set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The 18 objections/deficiencies are to be considered by the Management and Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, and a revised proposal, after removing the deficiencies, is to be tendered to Respondent No.5 within 15 days.

Key takeaways

After receipt of the revised proposal, the Education Officer is to follow the due procedure laid down in law and pass a reasoned order within a period of 30 days thereafter.ratio¶26
In the event the proposal is rejected, the aggrieved parties would be at liberty to avail of such remedy as is permissible in law.obiter¶31
If the proposal is accepted and approval is granted, the Shalarth I.D. is to be granted expeditiously so as to commence payment of salary.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ghuge & Bhobe, JJ.) disposed of a writ petition challenging the order dated 13th November, 2023 of the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad Sindhudurg, whereby the Management's proposal was rejected after recording 18 deficiencies without granting any opportunity to remove them. On the learned AGP's statement that the 18 deficiencies be treated as an intimation to the Management with time granted to cure them, the Court recorded that the impugned order stood withdrawn and set it aside. The Management and Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were directed to tender a revised proposal, after removing the deficiencies, to Respondent No.5 within 15 days; the Education Officer was to follow due procedure and pass a reasoned order within 30 days of its receipt; in case of rejection, aggrieved parties were left free to pursue permissible remedies; and upon approval, the Shalarth I.D. was to be granted expeditiously to commence salary payment.

914-wp-12976-2024.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.12976 OF 2024

Dipak Vijay Rathod …..Petitioner

Vs.

NIKITAKAILASDARADE

Digitally signed byNIKITA KAILASDARADEDate: 2025.03.2815:53:39 +0530

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ….Respondents

Mr. Vinayak R. Kumbhar a/w Mr. Aniket Phapale i/b Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioner.

Ms. A. A. Purav, AGP for the State.

Mr. Sushant Khatake i/b Mr. Utkarsh Desai for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

DATE : 25^th MARCH, 2025

P.C. :-

This is one more case wherein the Education Officer

Secondary, Zilla Parishad Sindhudurg, has recorded 18 deficiencies in the proposal forwarded by the Management and yet, without granting an opportunity to remove the deficiencies, has rejected the proposal vide the Impugned order dated 13^th November, 2023. We have set aside hundreds of such orders and we have also imposed

costs in several matters.

1 of 3

Nikita

914-wp-12976-2024.odt

The learned AGP submits on telephonic instructions,

that the 18 deficiencies be treated as an intimation of the deficiencies to the Management and time will be granted to the Management to remove the deficiencies. The revised proposal would be decided within 30 days after receiving the same.

In view of the above statement, indicating that the Impugned order stands withdrawn, we record that the same stands set aside.

The 18 objections/deficiencies will be considered by

the Management, Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and a revised proposal, after removing the deficiencies, would be tendered to Respondent No.5 within 15 days, since the learned Advocate for the Management submits that the documents which are mentioned in the list of objections, are actually tendered to the Education Officer.

Needless to state, after the revised proposal is received, the Education Officer would follow the due procedure laid down in law and pass a reasoned order within a period 30 days thereafter.

2 of 3

Nikita

914-wp-12976-2024.odt

In the event, the proposal is rejected, the aggrieved

parties would be at liberty to avail of a remedy as is permissible in law.

If the proposal is accepted and the approval is granted,

the Shalarth I.D. would also be granted expeditiously in order to commence the payment of salary.

8. The Writ Petition is disposed off.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

3 of 3

Nikita