Dhumal Priti Dilip vs Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Dhumal Priti Dilip vs Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned rejection orders treated as having lost efficacy; Management directed to file corrected proposals with Respondent No.1 within 30 days (under threat of heavy costs payable to the State Government on recurrence); Respondent No.1 to reconsider the revised proposals strictly under applicable Rules and Policies and pass reasoned orders within 60 days.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned orders rejecting the Petitioners' appointment proposals, which were passed on merits and rested on defective dates of appointment supplied by the Management, should continue to operate. +1 more

Court's answer

The impugned orders are treated as having lost their efficacy because the proposals contain several defects, including defective dates of appointments.

Ratio / Principle

The Management is directed to submit proper, defect-free proposals to Respondent No.1 within 30 days; if defects recur and the matter returns to the Court, heavy costs will be imposed on the Management and donated to the State Government.

Key takeaways

After receipt of the revised proposals, Respondent No.1 shall consider them strictly in accordance with the applicable Rules and Policies and pass reasoned orders within 60 days of receipt.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ghuge & Ankhad, JJ., 14 July 2025) disposes of five connected writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 2143, 2145, 2149, 2150 and 2151 of 2025) filed by appointees whose appointment proposals were rejected by the Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division, because defective dates entered by the Management in the proposals showed the appointments falling within the State Government's ban on recruitment, although the appointments had in fact taken place between 2012 and 2017, prior to the ban. With the Management conceding its blunder, the Court held that the impugned orders had lost efficacy; directed the Management to submit defect-free revised proposals to Respondent No.1 within 30 days, warning that recurrence would attract heavy costs donated to the State Government; and directed Respondent No.1 to consider the revised proposals strictly in accordance with the applicable Rules and Policies and pass reasoned orders within 60 days of receipt.

57-61-WP-2143+connected.odt

rajshree

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2143 OF 2025

Dhumal Priti Dilip … Petitioner

vs.

Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division & Ors. … Respondents

WITH

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2145 OF 2025

Chetana Kiran Shinde … Petitioner

vs.

Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division & Ors. … Respondents

WITH

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2149 OF 2025

Rupali Mahadev Margaje … Petitioner

vs.

Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division & Ors.

… Respondents

WITH

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2150 OF 2025

Narayan Madhukar Kashid … Petitioner

vs.

Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division & Ors. … Respondents

Digitally signed RAJSHREE by RAJSHREEKISHOR MORE KISHOR Date: MORE 2025.07.18 10:07:07 +0530

1/4

57-61-WP-2143+connected.odt

WITH

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2151 OF 2025

Sunita Bajirao Khopade … Petitioner

vs.

Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division & Ors. … Respondents

Mr.Sugandh Deshmukh a/w Mr.Aniket Kanawade, for the Petitioners. Mr.V.G. Badgujar, AGP for the Respondent-State in WP No.2143/2025 and WP No.2150/2025.

Mr.P.P. Kakade, Addl. GP a/w Ms.P.N. Diwan, AGP for the RespondentState in WP No.2145/2025 and WP No.2151/2025.

Mr.K.S. Thorat, B Panel Counsel for the Respondent-State in WP No.2149/2025.

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ

DATE : 14^th JULY, 2025.

P.C.

The learned AGP has strenuously pointed out that the impugned orders in these matters have been passed on merits.

These are peculiar cases wherein the Management concedes

that they have committed a blunder in mentioning the dates of

2/4

57-61-WP-2143+connected.odt

appointments of the Petitioners and various other defective dates in the proposals forwarded to the Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division, Pune. As a consequence of such defective proposals, rejection of the proposals was a fait-accompli.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioners fairly submits that, on the one hand, the Petitioners have been affected by the defective proposals sent by the Management and on the other hand, the reasons mentioned in the impugned orders are in relation to such defects committed by the Management. The appointment of these Petitioners took place between 2012 to 2017, much prior to the ban on recruitment imposed by the State Government. Since the defective dates indicate that these Petitioners were appointed during the ban period, the proposals have been rejected.

The learned Advocate for the Management submits with regret and apology that it is the mistake of the Management which has led to the impugned orders and prays that the Management be granted an opportunity to correct the proposals and file revised proposals within 30 days from today.

3/4

57-61-WP-2143+connected.odt

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders will be treated as having lost its efficacy, since the proposals contain several defects including defective dates of appointments.

We direct the Management to submit proper proposals to Respondent No.1 within 30 days from today, by ensuring that there will not be defects in the proposals. If this happens once again, and the matter is brought to this Court by any aggrieved party, we would be constrained to impose heavy costs on the Management and such amount would be donated to the State Government.

After the revised proposals are filed by the Management, Respondent No.1 would consider the proposals strictly in accordance with the Rules and Policies applicable and, thereafter, pass reasoned orders within 60 days of the receipt of the proposals.

With the above directions, these Writ Petitions are disposed off .

(GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J)

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

4/4