Mahesh Arjun Dhage and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Principal Secretry and Ors.

¶1

26-Wp-2834-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2834 OF 2025

¶5

1) Mahesh Arjun Dhage, ]
Aged 38 Yrs, Occ. Service, ] ]
R/o. Shivaji Nagar, Mangalvedha, Dist. Solapur – 413 305. ] ]
2) Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, ]
Mangalvedha, Dist. Solapur - 413 305, Through its President /Secretary. ] ] ]	...Petitioners.
Versus
1) The State of Maharashtra, ] ]
Through the Principal Secretary, Skill Development and Entrepreneurship ] ]
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.
2) The Joint Director, Vocational Education and Training Office, Pune. ] ]
3) The District Vocational Education and Training Officer, Solapur. ] ]	...Respondents.

¶6

Mr. Sagar Mane a/w. Mr. Rushikesh Jagdale for the Petitioners. Mr. V.M. Mali, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State.

——————

1 of 4

osk

26-Wp-2834-2025.doc

¶11

Coram : M. S. Karnik & Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ. Date : 10^th December 2025.

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶13

1. The Petitioners have challenged the impugned Order dated 31^st July 2024 passed by the Respondent No.3- The District Vocational Education and Training Officer, Solapur, thereby refusing the proposal made by the Respondent No.2-Management for approving the appointment of the Petitioner No.1 as a Full Time Teacher.

¶14

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:

¶15

The Petitioner No.1 is M.Com., B.Ed.. The Petitioner No.2 is an Educational Institution registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, running aided school having classes of standards 5^th to 12^th including Bi-focal M.C.V.C. Section of the Junior College.

¶16

3. By the G.R. dated 22^nd May 2008 two posts were sanctioned for Bifocal M.C.V.C. Section viz. one post of Full Time Instructor and one post of Full Time Teacher. Mr. Vanage Prakash Kerba and Mr. Mane Govind Dhondiba were working on the said sanctioned posts. Mr. Vanage attained the age of superannuation on 31^st December 2015. On 2^nd January 2016, the Petitioner No.2 published advertisement in the newspaper “Mangalvedha Times”. In response to the said advertisement, 10 candidates appeared for the interview. After conducting the selection

¶17

2 of 4

¶18

osk

¶19

26-Wp-2834-2025.doc

¶20

process, the Petitioner No.1 was appointed as Full Time Teacher for Banking subject with effect from 18^th January 2016. A proposal was submitted to the Respondent No.3 by the Management on 26^th March 2018 for approval of the appointment of the Petitioner No.1.

¶21

4. The proposal was returned on two occasions. Thereafter it was again re-submitted. The Respondent No.3, by the impugned Order dated 31^st July 2024, returned the proposal on the ground that, in view of the G.R. dated 30^th July 2017 and 4^th May 2020, there was no permission to fill up the vacant posts.

¶22

5. We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. Learned A.G.P. argued in support of the impugned Order. However, in our opinion the impugned Order deserves to be set-aside for the simple reason that the appointment of the Petitioner No.1 was made on 16^th January 2016, i.e. prior to the issuance of the G.R.s dated 30^th July 2017 and 4^th May 2020. There is nothing to indicate that the G.R.s dated 30^th July 2017 and 4^th May 2020 are having retrospective operation. Merely, because the proposal is submitted belatedly and after the G.R.s came into force, cannot be a reason to hold that the G.R.s would govern the proposal in respect of an appointment made prior to the issuance of the G.R.s. The impugned Order deserves to be quashed and set-aside. Ordered accordingly.

¶23

3 of 4

¶24

osk

¶25

26-Wp-2834-2025.doc

¶26

6. The Petitioner No.2-Management is directed to resubmit the proposal to the Respondent No.3 within a period of two weeks from today. The said proposal be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law, but not on the ground on which it was rejected, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the proposal.

¶27

7. The deficiencies, if any in the proposal be communicated to the Petitioner No.2-Management by the Respondent No.3. The Petitioner No.2-Management shall explain / cure the same within a period of two weeks from the date of such communication.

¶28

8. In case, the proposal is approved, the Respondent No.2 to issue Shalarth I.D. to the Petitioner No.1 as expeditiously as possible.

¶29

9. The Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶30

[ Ajit B. Kadethankar, J. ] [ M. S. Karnik, J. ]

¶31

Digitally signed by OMKAR SHIVAHAR OMKAR KUMBHAKARN SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN Date: 2025.12.17 14:33:44 +0530

¶32

4 of 4

¶33

osk

Mahesh Arjun Dhage and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Principal Secretry and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Arjun Dhage and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Principal Secretry and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shamim Mahimuddin Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra Trh. Education and Sports Departments and Ors.

Ravsaheb Irasha Koli Vs Satate of Maharashtra Thro. Its Secretary Tribal Devlop. Departent

Sachin Kisan Khandekar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Sec. School Edu. Dept. and Ors.

Amir @ a. Hamid Nazir Mulla Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shree Warna Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Prashant Pradip Sonawane and Ors. Vs the Deputy Director Sangli and Ors.