Sitanjali Pandurang Jadhav and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Dept. of Education and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sitanjali Pandurang Jadhav and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Dept. of Education and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 20.02.2022 set aside; the six objections therein to serve as a notice of deficiencies; Management (Petitioner No. 2) granted 30 days to remove the deficiencies and submit a revised proposal to Respondent No. 2; Respondent No. 2 to verify and decide the revised proposal on its own merits with reasonable opportunity of hearing within 60 days of receipt; aggrieved parties free to assail that order; merits expressly left open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli acted correctly in returning the Management's recruitment proposal after pointing out deficiencies, without first granting the Management time to remove those deficiencies and thereafter deciding the proposal on its merits.

Ratio / Principle

The Court interfered with the impugned order solely because the Education Officer failed to grant the Management time to remove the deficiencies within a particular time frame; having granted such time, he should have dealt with the proposal on its merits.

Key takeaways

The Writ Petition is partly allowed only for the purpose of granting the Management an opportunity to remove the deficiencies, and the impugned order dated 20.02.2022 is set aside.ratio¶19
The six objections set out in the impugned order shall be treated by the Management (Petitioner No. 2) as a notice for removing the deficiencies; the Management shall remove them within 30 days and submit a revised proposal to Respondent No. 2, who shall carry out a meticulous verification exercise and decide the proposal on its own merits, granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Management, within 60 days of receipt of the revised proposal; any aggrieved party is at liberty to assail the resulting order.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Coram Ravindra V. Ghuge and Ashwin D. Bhobe, JJ. (25.02.2025), in Writ Petition No. 18791 of 2024 (Sitanjali Pandurang Jadhav & Ors. v. State of Maharashstra & Ors.), partly allowed the petition and set aside the order dated 20.02.2022 of the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli, whereby the Management's recruitment proposal was returned on grounds including non-observance of the Pavitra Portal, publication of the advertisement in the newspaper 'Preeti Sangam', and non-adherence to Government Resolution 10.06.2024. Holding that the officer ought first to have granted the Management time to remove the deficiencies within a particular time frame and thereafter dealt with the proposal on its merits, the Court directed that the six objections be treated as a notice; the Management (Petitioner No. 2) to remove the deficiencies within 30 days and submit a revised proposal to Respondent No. 2, who must carry out a meticulous verification and decide the proposal on its own merits with reasonable opportunity of hearing within 60 days of receipt, aggrieved parties being at liberty to assail that order. The Court expressly expressed no opinion on the merits, leaving all grounds/issues open to the Education Officer.

Digitally signed by ARUNA ARUNA SANDEEP SANDEEP TALWALKAR TALWALKAR Date: 2025.02.27 3.WP18791.2024.odt 18:28:14 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 18791 OF 2024

Sitanjali Pandurang Jadhav & Ors. … Petitioners Versus State of Maharashstra & Ors. … Respondents.

Mr. Sidheshwar N. Biradar a/w. Mr. D.R. Shinde, Mr. Omhari Fawade, for the Petitioners.

Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. G.P. a/w. Ms. Pooja Deshpande, AGP for Respondent/State.

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

DATE : 25^th FEBRUARY, 2025

P.C. :

The impugned order is dated 20.02.2022. Certain deficiencies have been pointed out by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli, Shri Rajesaheb Londhe. Despite pointing out deficiencies, the proposal has been returned to the Management. He has specifically raised objections as regards non-observance of the Pavitra Portal for the purpose of recruitment and an advertisement published in

an unknown newspaper namely, ‘Preeti Sangam’, in non-adherence to the Government Resolution 10.06.2024.

1

Talwalkar

3.WP18791.2024.odt

We are interfering in this impugned order only because the said officer should have granted time to the Management to remove the deficiencies within a particular time frame. Thereafter, he should have dealt with the proposal on it’s merits.

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is partly allowed,

only for the purpose of granting an opportunity to the Management to remove the deficiencies. The impugned order is set aside.

The six objections set out in the impugned order shall be treated by the Management, Petitioner No. 2 herein, as a notice for removing the deficiencies. The Management shall remove such deficiencies within a period of 30 days from today and submit a revised proposal to Respondent No. 2. After the proposal is received, Respondent No. 2 shall carry out a meticulous verification exercise and decide the said proposal on its own merits by granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Management, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the revised proposal. Any aggrieved party is at liberty to assail the said order.

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion as

2

Talwalkar

3.WP18791.2024.odt

regards the merits of the proposal and all grounds/issues are open to the

Education Officer to consider/verify while dealing with the same.

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

3

Talwalkar