Swati Dipak Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Dept of Education and Ors.

Mr. Patil would submit that vacancy for the post of “Assistant Teacher” in petitioner No.3 – Shahu High School and Junior College arose due to death of Assistant Teacher Ajit R. Gavade. He would further submit that by following due procedure, petitioner No.2 – Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and petitioner No.3 - Shahu High School and Junior College appointed the petitioner No.1 on the vacant post of “Assistant Teacher” by an order dated 1^st

¶15

1 of 4

¶16

SHAILAJA Digitally signed bySHAILAJA SHRIKANT SHRIKANT HALKUDE Date: 2025.12.09 12:08:26 HALKUDE +0530

¶17

28-WP-15372-2025.doc

¶18

October, 2020. Petitioners No.2 and 3 approached respondent No.2 – Education Officer with a proposal seeking approval to the appointment of petitioner No.1 in the post of Shikshan Sevak/Assistant Teacher, However, respondent No.2 refused to grant the proposal vide order dated 2^nd March, 2020. He would further submit that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 even forwarded proposal on 10^th February, 2021 to respondent No.2 – Education Officer seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Shikshan Sevak. However, vide order dated 2^nd March, 2021, respondent No.2 – Education Officer turned down the said proposal thereby intimating nine deficiencies. Learned Counsel would further submit that School Management is also petitioners in the present petition with petitioner No.1 who is the appointee. He would further submit that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 removed all the deficiencies and a comprehensive and clear proposal was submitted to the respondent No.2 – Education Officer vide covering letter dated 7^th April, 2021. Learned Counsel would further submit that despite curing all deficiencies by the petitioners, respondent No.2 – Education Officer has not taken any decision on the proposal.

¶19

Mr. Patil fairly submitted that at this juncture, he only seeks direction to respondent No.2 – Education Officer to decide the proposal dated 7^th April, 2021 as expeditiously as possible.

¶20

2 of 4

¶21

28-WP-15372-2025.doc

¶22

Learned A.G.P would submit that respondent No.2 – Education Officer has to scrutinize the proposal in light of the prevailing Government policies and the Rules.

¶23

In view of this, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with following directions;

¶24

(a) Respondent No.2 – Education Officer shall decide the proposal dated 7^th April, 2021 submitted by petitioner Nos.1 and 2 as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.

¶25

(b) Despite the fact that the petitioners have removed all the deficiencies, if respondent No.2 – Education Officer still finds any additional deficiencies, the petitioners shall be given appropriate opportunity of hearing and time to remove such deficiencies.

¶26

(c) Respondent No.2 – Education Officer shall take decision on the proposal on its own merits.

¶27

We make it clear that we have not made any observations on the merits of the petitioners’ case.

¶28

3 of 4

¶29

28-WP-15372-2025.doc

¶30

Needless to mention that if respondent No.2 – Education Officer grants approval to the services of petitioner No.1, Deputy Director of Education shall include petitioner No.1 in Shalarth System and shall grant Shalarth ID to petitioner No.1 and the process of releasing honorarium/salary shall be conducted within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶31

The petition is disposed of.

¶32

[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]

¶33

[M.S. KARNIK, J.]

¶34

4 of 4

Swati Dipak Patil and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. Dept of Education and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swati Dipak Patil and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. Dept of Education and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudarshan Sharad Mohite and Ors. Vs the School Education Nd Sport Dept. and Ors.

Mrudula Manmohan Desai and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra (Thr School Education and Sport Dept. Ministry ) and Ors.

Chetan Shahaji Shinde@ Agalave Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Annaso Jagannath Patil and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ananda Rangarav Patil Ors. Vs the Collector Kolhapur Collector Ors. Koffic

Madhuri Sanjay Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.