Smt Nita Suresh Oulkar vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Sec. School Education and Sports Dept and Ors.

Mr. Utkarsh Desai, Adocate for respondent nos. 6 & 7 in all petitions. Mr. Suresh Pakale (Through VC) a/w. Mr. Onkar Ghatage, Advocate for respondent no.6 in all petitions.

¶17

Mr. Siddheshwar Kalel, AGP for respondents-State in WP/14824/2024 & WP/11002/2024.

¶18

Mr. Vikas Mali, AGP for respondents-State in WP/15544/2024.

¶19

Coram : Madhav J. Jamdar & Pravin S. Patil, JJ.

1

adn

916-WP-14824-2024

Date : April 2, 2026.

¶24

P. C. :

¶25

1. In all these Writ Petitions, a identical prayer is made by the petitioners that their individual proposals of approval forwarded to the Education Officer by respondent nos. 6 and 7 be directed to be decided on their own merits. As such considering the identical prayer in all these petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶26

2. It is the case of petitioners that they being qualified to the respective post in the school run by respondent No.6, came to be appointment by following due procedure of law. After their appointment, the respective Head Master of school forwarded the individual proposal of approval of petitioners to Respondent No.5 Education Officer. However, for a considerable period no decision is taken by Education Officer, therefore, approached before this Court seeking direction against him to decide the same in time bound period.

¶27

3. It seems that management of Respondent No. 6 is in dispute. One group is supporting the petitioners and other group is disputing the appointment of petitioners. In the present matters, one Bharmu S. Patil filed affidavit and raised various grounds to demonstrate that appointment of petitioners being illegal, no approval should be granted by Education officer in their favour.

2

adn

916-WP-14824-2024

4. During the course of hearing, the petitioners have placed on record an order passed by the Education Officer dated 20th May 2025, wherein it is stated that as the present petitions are pending before this Court, could not take decision on pending proposal.

¶32

5. In light of the submissions of both sides, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of this Court in Navnath Narsing Gore vs. State of Maharashtra , reported in 2021 (6) Mh.L.J. 118 , wherein paragraph 32 reads thus:

¶33

“32. From the pleadings as well as during the hearing it become evident that the dispute referred to in the order 20-1-2016 was in relation to management of the institution by rival claimants. Such dispute had no nexus or connection with the selection and appointment of the petitioner and the approval sought for. Just because there was a dispute as to control of management of the Institution that could not have been a ground to decline approval or to keep such approval in abeyance. Routine affairs of the institution including appointments and approvals thereto are to be considered de-hors such tussle as to management of the institution. That being the position impugned order dated 20-1-2016 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside and quashed.”

¶34

6. In such circumstances in our considered opinion the Education

¶35

officer is bound by the provisions of law to decide the proposal of approval. At the time of deciding approval he can considered the objection of Respondent No.6 and decide the same on it’s own merit. During such hearing Petitioners as well as Respondents can raise all issues and point out the law laid down by this Court on such issues. Thereafter Education Officer can take independent decision on proposal

3

adn

916-WP-14824-2024

of approval.

7. In view of the above, we pass the following order:

¶41

(I) The Writ Petitions are partly allowed.

¶42

(ii) Respondent No.5 – Education Officer is directed to decide the pending individual proposals of the petitioners by granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as all stakeholders. The Education Officer shall consider all objections and submissions and decide the proposals on their own merits by recording cogent reasons.

¶43

8. It is further directed that the aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of production of this order.

¶44

9. All contentions of the parties raised in this petition are expressly

¶45

kept open.

¶46

10. The Writ Petitions stand disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.

¶47

[Pravin S. Patil, J.]

¶48

[Madhav J. Jamdar, J.]

¶49

4

¶50

adn

Smt Nita Suresh Oulkar v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Sec. School Education and Sports Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Nita Suresh Oulkar v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Sec. School Education and Sports Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deepak Lakshman Supugade vs the District Collector Satara

Prakash Nagappa Jamgondi vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Balaso Bapu Desai vs the State of Maharashtra Throrugh the Secretary Village Development

Vishawajeet Sanmat Digambare vs State of Maharashtra Thru Its Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept. and Ors.

Prashant Prabhakar Shelar vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramchandra Bhiku Aldar Gaurdian of Vaibhav Aldarand Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Others