Disposed¶24

Ranjana Manikrao Mundhe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC21 Mar 2025WP/1654/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularisation/approval of Assistant Teacher appointment from 10.06.2002 versus 2013; direction to Management (Respondents 3 & 4) to forward approval proposal to State within four weeks; State to decide within four months; Shyam Shikshan Prasarak Mandal; Gangamata Girls Secondary & Higher Secondary School; Lohara, Udgir, Latur; State of Maharashtra, School Education and Sports Department; Writ Petition No. 1654 of 2020; Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench; neutral citation 2025:BHC-AUG:8521-DB; decided 21 March 2025; disposed of with directions.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of with directions: Management/Respondents 3 and 4 to forward the Petitioner's proposal for approval to the State Authority within four weeks, and the State Authority to decide the proposal within four months thereafter. ¶24

Ranjana Manikrao Mundhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:8521-DB

¶2

1 WP1654.2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1654 OF 2020

¶5

. Ranjana Manikrao Mundhe, Age: 45 Years, Occu.: Service, R/o. C/o. Gangamata Kanya Vidyalaya, Lohara, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur .. Petitioner

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶8

The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Latur

¶9

Shyam Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Nagalgaon Tanda, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur, Through it’s Secretary

¶10

The Head Master, Gangamata Girls Secondary & Higher Secondary School, Lohara, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur

¶11

.. Respondents

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. S. S. Jadhavar h/f. Mr. Suhas R. Shirsat GP for Respondent/State: Mr. A. B. Girase

¶13

CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, C.J. & ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 21^st MARCH, 2025

¶14

ORDER: [Per Arun R. Pedneker, J.]

¶15

Heard.

¶16

2 WP1654.2020

¶17

By the present petition the Petitioner is seeking direction against the Respondent / Management to submit his proposal to the State Authorities seeking regularisation of his appointment for the post of Assistant Teacher from the period of 2002 till 2011. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was appointed on the post in the year 2002 and continues to be on the post. He submits that his proposal for approval was submitted in the year 2013. He submits that, the regularisation of appointment for the post of Assistant Teacher ought to have been granted from 10.06.2002 and not from the year 2013.

¶18

Although, the Respondent / Management is served in the matter, none has entered appearance for the Respondent / Management.

¶19

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that the Management has not submitted the proposal for approval from the year 2002 rather had submitted the proposal from the period 2013 onwards. He submits that if any such a proposal is forwarded by the Management the State would consider the same in accordance with law.

¶20

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that he would make a representation to the Management seeking approval of his

¶21

3 WP1654.2020

¶22

appointment from the year 2002 with all necessary documents within a period of two (02) week’s from today.

¶23

Considering the submission of the State Government and also considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, we deem it appropriate to direct the Management / Institution / Respondent No.3 and 4 to forward the proposal made by the Petitioner for approval to the State. The management shall forward it to the Respondent / State Authority within a period of four (04) week’s. The proposal forwarded to the Respondent / State Authority, is directed to be decided within four (04) months thereafter.

¶24

Considering the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of with

¶25

above directions.

¶26

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]

¶27

[CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶28

marathe

Ranjana Manikrao Mundhe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjana Manikrao Mundhe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Khodiyar Trading vs Lima Shipping and Dredging Private Limited

Bhaiyya Nijam Aatar Alias Ajim Nijam Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sahadev Prabhu Harale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Latif Kamal vs M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Through Poa Mr. Amit Narayan Paitl and Anr.

Laxmibai Ramprasad Kamble and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Aasaram Jayram Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others