Aruna Bajirao Patil. vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary,School Education and Ors. . — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Aruna Bajirao Patil. vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary,School Education and Ors. . — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 23 October 2023 treated as show cause notice; Management to submit explanation within two weeks; Respondent No.3 to decide the proposal afresh considering the explanation, expeditiously and in any event within eight weeks thereafter; Writ Petition disposed in these terms.

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No.3 could reject the Petitioner's proposal for approval of her appointment as Shikshan Sevak by merely citing deficiencies, without affording the Petitioner/Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 Management an opportunity to submit an explanation/documents and cure the deficiencies. +1 more

Court's answer

The proposal for approval of the Petitioner's appointment as Shikshan Sevak was rejected by citing the deficiencies without giving the Petitioner/Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 Management any opportunity to submit an explanation/documents and cure the deficiencies.

Ratio / Principle

Since no opportunity had been given, the order dated 23 October 2023 is to be treated as a show cause notice to the Petitioner/Respondent Nos. 4 and 5-Management.

Key takeaways

The necessary explanation is to be submitted by the Management within the period of two weeks from the date of the order.ratio¶20
Upon receipt of the explanation, Respondent No.3 is to decide the proposal afresh by taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the Respondent-Management.ratio¶21
The fresh decision by Respondent No.3 is to be taken expeditiously and in any event within the period of eight weeks after receipt of the explanation.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay HC (Circuit Bench at Kolhapur) — Writ Petition No.570 of 2025 (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) — Oral order dated 8 September 2025 per Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.; Coram: M.S. Karnik & Sharmila U. Deshmukh, JJ. Petitioner, selected on 25 February 2022 as Shikshan Sevak in Respondent No.5-School (joined 2 March 2022), challenged the order dated 23 October 2023 of Respondent No.3 rejecting the proposal submitted on 13 October 2023 by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for approval of her appointment. The court found that the proposal was rejected by citing deficiencies without giving the Petitioner/Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 Management an opportunity to submit an explanation/documents or cure the deficiencies. Directions issued: the impugned order to be treated as a show cause notice; explanation by the Management within two weeks; Respondent No.3 thereafter to decide the proposal afresh taking the explanation into account, expeditiously and in any event within eight weeks. Writ Petition disposed of in these terms.

43-wp-570-2025.doc

Nikita

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

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.570 OF 2025

NIKITAKAILASDARADE Digitallysigned byNIKITAKAILASDARADEDate:2025.09.0918:50:19+0530

Aruna Bajirao Patil ...Petitioner

versus

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Datta H. Pawar for the Petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Deokar, AGP for the State.

CORAM : M.S. KARNIK &

SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATE : 8^th SEPTEMBER, 2025. ORAL ORDER (Per Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.):

The petition impugns the order dated 23^rd October, 2023 passed by the Respondent No.3 rejecting the Petitioner’s proposal seeking approval to the appointment as Shikshan Sevak with Respondent No.5School. On 25^th February 2022 the Petitioner participated in the selection process and was selected for the post of Shikshan Sevak in the Respondent No.5-School and joined the services on 2^nd March, 2022. On 13^th October, 2023, the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submitted a proposal for approval to the Respondent No.3 which was rejected by the impugned order dated 23^rd October, 2023.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the deficiencies which are listed in the impugned order dated 23^rd October, 2023 constituted grounds for rejection of proposal without affording an opportunity to the Petitioner/ Respondent No.4 and 5 to submit an

1 of 2

43-wp-570-2025.doc

explanation and/or cure the deficiencies.

Learned AGP would support the impugned order and submit that in view of the deficiencies listed in the impugned order, the proposal was rightly rejected by the Respondent No.3.

We find from the perusal of the impugned order dated 23^rd October, 2023, that the proposal came to be rejected by citing the deficiencies without giving opportunity to Petitioner/ Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 Management to submit an explanation / documents and cure the deficiencies stated therein.

In light of the same, as there was no opportunity given to the Petitioner/ Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 Management, the order of 23^rd October, 2023 be treated as a show cause notice to the Petitioner/ Respondent Nos. 4 and 5-Management. Let the necessary explanation be submitted by the Management within the period of two weeks from the date of this order.

Upon the receipt of the explanation, the Respondent No.3 to decide the proposal afresh by taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the Respondent-Management, expeditiously and in any event within the period of eight weeks thereafter.

The Writ Petition is disposed off in the above said terms.

[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]

2 of 2