Rohan Laxman Patil and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra Thr Dept. of Education and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rohan Laxman Patil and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra Thr Dept. of Education and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 28.8.2024 quashed and set aside; deficiencies therein treated as notice to the Management; revised proposal to be filed with Respondent No. 2 within 30 days; Respondent No. 2 to meticulously verify and decide within 30 days of receipt; no opinion on merits; cost of Rs. 2500/- imposed on Respondent No. 2 from his salary bank account, depositable in Court within 21 days and donatable to Girija Welfare Association.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 28.8.2024 of the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur, rejecting the proposal for approval after pointing out deficiencies without giving the Management an opportunity to remove them, ought to be quashed and set aside. +1 more

Court's answer

The Petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 28.8.2024 is quashed and set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The deficiencies listed in the impugned order are to be treated as a notice to the Management; the deficiencies shall be removed and a revised proposal submitted to Respondent No. 2 within 30 days.

Key takeaways

Respondent No. 2 is to deal with the revised proposal by conducting meticulous verification of each and every aspect of the recruitment process, and arrive at a decision within 30 days from receipt of the revised proposal.ratio¶3
The Court expressly made clear that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the proposal.obiter¶4
Considering the same Education Officer repeatedly passing the same type of orders being quashed, a cost of Rs. 2500/- is imposed on Respondent No. 2, payable from his salary bank account, to be deposited in Court within 21 days and, with the consent of the Petitioners, donated to Girija Welfare Association.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; Coram: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE and ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.; order dated 05.03.2025) partly allowed Writ Petition No. 15938 of 2024 and quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 28.8.2024 of the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur, rejecting a proposal for approval after pointing out deficiencies without granting the Management an opportunity to remove them — a practice the Bench noted it had corrected in not less than 100 matters in the preceding six months. The deficiencies listed in the impugned order were treated as notice to the Management, which was directed to remove them and submit a revised proposal to Respondent No. 2 within 30 days; Respondent No. 2 was to conduct a meticulous verification of every aspect of the recruitment process and decide within a further 30 days of receipt of the revised proposal. The Court expressly reserved its opinion on the merits of the proposal. Observing that the same Education Officer repeatedly passed the same type of orders, the Bench imposed a cost of Rs. 2500/- on Respondent No. 2, payable from his salary bank account, to be deposited in Court within 21 days and, with the Petitioners' consent, donated to Girija Welfare Association (A/c No. 309006361574, RBL Bank, Kharghar branch, IFSC RATN0000078). No statute or precedent was cited in the order.

Digitally signed by ARUNA ARUNA SANDEEP SANDEEPTALWALKAR TALWALKARDate: 904.WP15938.2024.odt 2025.03.10 14:45:34 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 15938 OF 2024

Rohan Laxman Patil & Ors. … Petitioners.

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents.

Mr. Mandar G. Bagkar, for the Petitioner.

Ms. A.A. Purav, AGP for Respondent/State. ****

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

DATE : 5^rd MARCH, 2025

P.C. :

This is yet one more case of the Education Officer(Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur, Dr. Eknath Ambokar, who has pointed out deficiencies in a proposal for approval and without granting an opportunity to the Management to remove the deficiencies, has rejected the proposal.

In not less than 100 matters, we have passed orders in the last 6 months directing the Education Officer not to close the proposal by rejecting it when he himself has pointed out deficiencies to the

1

Talwalkar

904.WP15938.2024.odt

Management.

In view of the above, this Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 28.8.2024, is quashed and set aside. The deficiencies listed out in the impugned order shall be treated as a notice to the Management. These deficiencies shall be removed by the Management and a revised proposal shall be submitted to Respondent No. 2, within a period of 30 days from today. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 will deal with the said proposal by conducting a meticulous verification and look into each and every aspect of the recruitment process. Let a decision on the said proposal be arrived at within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the revised proposal.

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the proposal.

Since the same Education Officer is repeatedly passing the same type of orders, which we are continuously quashing and setting aside, we are once again imposing the cost of Rs. 2500/- to be paid by the Respondent No. 2 from his salary bank account. The cost amount shall be deposited in this Court within 21 days. With the consent of the Petitioners the said amount shall be donated to the following :

2

Talwalkar

904.WP15938.2024.odt

Name : Girija Welfare Association Account No. : 309006361574 Bank : RBL Bank. Branch : Kharghar. IFSC Code : RATN0000078

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

3

Talwalkar