Sunita Bajirao Khopade vs Deputy Director of Education Pune Division and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sunita Bajirao Khopade 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, defect-free proposals with Respondent No.1 within 30 days; Respondent No.1 directed to reconsider the revised proposals per the applicable Rules and Policies and pass reasoned orders within 60 days of receipt; Writ Petitions disposed of accordingly.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned rejection orders, grounded in defective dates of appointment supplied by the Management, should cease to operate so that corrected proposals may be freshly considered, given that the actual appointments (2012 to 2017) preceded the ban on recruitment imposed by the State Government.

Court's answer

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

Ratio / Principle

The Management is directed to submit proper proposals to Respondent No.1 within 30 days from the date of the order, ensuring that there are no defects in the proposals.

Key takeaways

Conditional caution: if defective proposals recur and the matter is again brought to the Court by an aggrieved party, heavy costs would be imposed on the Management and the amount donated to the State Government.obiter¶6
Respondent No.1 shall consider the revised proposals strictly in accordance with the Rules and Policies applicable and pass reasoned orders within 60 days of receipt of the proposals.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ghuge & Ankhad, JJ., 14-07-2025) disposes of five connected writ petitions (CIVIL WRIT PETITION NOS.2143, 2145, 2149, 2150 and 2151 OF 2025) by teachers whose appointments (2012–2017) predated the State's recruitment ban but whose proposals were rejected by the Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division because the Management had entered defective appointment dates indicating appointments during the ban period. The Court concedes the Management's error, treats the impugned orders as having lost efficacy, directs the Management to file defect-free revised proposals within 30 days (warning of heavy costs, donateable to the State Government, upon recurrence), and directs Respondent No.1 to consider the revised proposals strictly per 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