Vaibhav Shivaji Kodag Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Secretary and Sport Dept. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Vaibhav Shivaji Kodag Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Secretary and Sport Dept. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 25st September 2023 set aside and treated as show cause notice to the Respondent-Management; Management to explain/cure deficiencies within two weeks; Education Officer to inform further deficiencies, if any, within four weeks; proposal to be decided afresh within 10 weeks of communication of the order; if approved, Shalarth ID to be issued expeditiously by Respondent No. 4.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order rejecting the proposal concerning the Petitioner's appointment, passed without giving any opportunity to the parties, should stand. +1 more

Court's answer

The impugned order was passed without giving any opportunity to the parties.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order is set aside and is to be treated as show cause notice to the Respondent-Management.

Key takeaways

The Management is to explain/cure the deficiencies within a period of two weeks from the date of the Court's order.ratio¶19
Further deficiencies, if any, are to be informed by the Education Officer to the Management within a period of four weeks from the date of the Court's order.ratio¶19
The proposal is to be decided afresh within a period of 10 weeks from the date of communication of the Court's order.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Kolhapur Circuit Bench), Civil Appellate Jurisdiction — Writ Petition No. 7986 of 2024, Vaibhav Shivaji Kodag v. The State of Maharashtra And Ors (decided November 10, 2025; coram M. S. Karnik & Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ.). The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli (Respondent No. 5) had, by order dated 25st September 2023 (as printed), rejected the Management's proposal concerning the Petitioner's appointment without giving any opportunity to the parties; the order indicated the appointment as on compassionate basis whereas counsel asserted it was a fresh appointment, and rejection was attributed to similarity of the Petitioner's surname with another employee. The High Court found the order was passed without any opportunity to the parties, set it aside, and directed that it be treated as a show cause notice to the Respondent-Management, which was to explain/cure deficiencies within two weeks; further deficiencies, if any, were to be intimated by the Education Officer within four weeks; the proposal was to be decided afresh within ten weeks of communication of the order and, if approved, the Shalarth ID was to be issued expeditiously by Respondent No. 4. Writ Petition disposed of. No statutes or precedent cases cited.

31-WP-7986-2024.doc

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

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 7986 OF 2024

Vaibhav Shivaji Kodag … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra And Ors … Respondents

Mr. Umesh Pawar for the Petitioner. Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

——————

Coram : M. S. Karnik & Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ.

Date : November 10, 2025.

P. C. :

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Impugned order dated 25^st September 2023 is passed by the Respondent No. 5-Education Oicer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli.

3. Learned AGP appears for the Respondent-Education Oicer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad Sangli. Learned AGP supported the impugned order. However, we ind that the impugned order is passed without giving any opportunity to the parties.

1 of 2

Shubham Talle

31-WP-7986-2024.doc

4. Mr. Bhavake, submits that if an opportunity were to be granted to the Management on the proposal as submitted by the Management, they could have explained the deiciencies. It is further submitted that it is only on account of the similarity in the sur-name of the Petitioner with another employee, that the proposal is rejected. The fundamental error in the impugned order, according to learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner’s appointment is fresh appointment and not on compassionate basis as is indicated in the order. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and it be treated as show cause notice to the Respondent-Management. The Management to explain/cure deiciencies within a period of two weeks from today. Further deiciencies, if any, be informed by the Education Oicer to the Management within a period of four weeks from today.

5. The proposal to be decided afresh within a period of 10 weeks from the date of communication of this order. If the proposal is approved, Shalarth ID be issued expeditiously by the Respondent No. 4. 6. Writ Petition is disposed of.

TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO

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

Digitally signed by TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Date: 2025.11.11 18:22:17 +0530

2 of 2

Shubham Talle