Deepak Karbhari Kandalkar vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Edu Dept. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Deepak Karbhari Kandalkar vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Edu Dept. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed off by recording that the order dated 14th June 2022 is not with reference to the Petitioner, with a further direction that Respondent No.2 shall ensure the Petitioner's pending appointment proposal is decided per due procedure within 45 days, applying rules and policies applicable as on the date of his appointment.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 14 June 2022 passed by the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Pune, affects the Petitioner, given that his own proposal for individual approval is not referred to therein. +1 more

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 14th June 2022 does not pertain to or affect the Petitioner; it deals solely with the refusal of individual approval to Shri. Narendra Jankiram Mahajan and Smt. Sheetal Bhaskar Chaudhari, and records no objection or deficiency as regards the Petitioner's proposal.

Ratio / Principle

Though the Petitioner was heard and there is no order of rejection — which might suggest deemed approval — such a conclusion cannot be drawn, since a matter of approval requires a speaking order either granting or refusing approval.

Key takeaways

Respondent No.2 is directed to ensure that the proposal pertaining to the Petitioner's appointment, if pending, is decided by following the due procedure laid down in law within a period of 45 days, considering the rules and policies applicable as on the date of his appointment.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, W.P. No.2495 of 2025 (Coram: Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge & Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe), decided 11 March 2025. A candidate (Deepak Karbhari Kandalkar) challenged an order dated 14 June 2022 of the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Pune (Ms. Sandhya Gaikwad). The Court found that the order concerned solely the refusal of individual approval to two other candidates (Shri. Narendra Jankiram Mahajan and Smt. Sheetal Bhaskar Chaudhari) and contained no reference to any objection or deficiency regarding the Petitioner, who had been duly heard; hence it did not affect him. The Court further held that mere absence of a rejection order does not amount to deemed approval — a speaking order either granting or refusing approval is necessary. The Petition was disposed of with a direction that Respondent No.2 ensure the Petitioner's pending appointment proposal is decided per the due procedure laid down in law within 45 days, applying the rules and policies applicable as on the date of his appointment (posts advertised in Dainik Sakal and Dainik Lokmat on 24-25 April 2012).

914-WP-2495-2025.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.2495 OF 2025

Deepak Karbhari Kandalkar ….Petitioner

versus

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ….Respondents

Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. Vinayak R. Kumbhar, Rajendra Khaire i/by Ms. Ashwini Bandiwadekar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. B.V. Samant, Addl. G.P., for the Respondent No.1– State.

Mr. Vivek B. Rane i/b Ms. Ashwin Kapadnis, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE

&

ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

DATE : 11^th MARCH, 2025

P.C. :-

This matter was heard extensively on 10^th March, 2025

and posted today.

The issue before us is an order passed by the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Pune, Ms. Sandhya Gaikwad,

1 of 3

Kartikeya

914-WP-2495-2025.odt

dated 14^th June, 2022. Vide the order, the Education Society is informed that the proposal for granting individual approval to Shri. Narendra Jankiram Mahajan and Sheetal Bhaskar Chaudhari, was considered.

In the hearing, the concerned Authority recorded the submissions of Smt. Swati Chimbalkar, Head Mistress, the Shikshan Sevak Shri. Narendra Jankiram Mahajan and Shri. Deepak Karbhari Kandalkar. The Petitioner before us is Shri. Deepak Karbhari Kandalkar. The entire impugned order pertains to the reasons being assigned for refusing individual approval to Shri. Narendra Jankiram Mahajan and Smt. Sheetal Bhaskar Chaudhari. There is not a whisper about any objections or deficiencies as regards the proposal of the present Petitioner. The advertisement was also published in Dainik Sakal and Dainik Lokmat, having largest circulation in the State of Maharashtra, on 24^th April, 2012 and 25^th April, 2012.

In view of the above, we do not find that the impugned order can be said to affect the Petitioner. In fact, the Petitioner was heard by the said Authority and there is no order of rejection. It

2 of 3

Kartikeya

914-WP-2495-2025.odt

could mean that the approval is deemed to be granted. However, such a conclusion cannot be drawn since it is a matter of approval and there has to be a speaking order either granting or refusing approval.

Considering the above, this Petition is disposed off by recording that the contents of the order dated 14^th June, 2022 are not with reference to the present Petitioner. Therefore, it is further directed that Respondent No.2 shall ensure that a proposal pertaining to the Petitioner’s appointment, if pending, shall be decided by following the due procedure laid down in law within a period of 45 days from today, considering the rules and the policies applicable as on the date of his appointment.

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

3 of 3

Kartikeya