Bombay High Court
MRS. ANURADHA MUKESH NIMBALKAR (MS. ANURADHA PRAKASH MOHITE) AND ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. SECRETARY AND ANR.
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The order rejecting the proposal is quashed as it violated the right to be heard.
Summary
The petitioners challenged a Deputy Director of Education’s order dated 28 October 2025 that rejected their proposal to appoint petitioner No. 1 as a Shikshan Sevak, citing certain deficiencies. The petitioners argued that they were not given any opportunity to cure those deficiencies before the rejection. The Court examined whether the failure to provide a chance to be heard violated the principles of natural justice. Finding that no opportunity was afforded, the Court held the rejection unlawful and quashed the impugned order. It directed the management to rectify the deficiencies within two weeks and remitted the matter for a fresh decision, with further timelines for approval, inclusion in the Shalarth Pranali, allocation of a Shalarth ID, and release of grant‑in‑aid. The petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Deputy Director’s rejection of the appointment proposal without granting an opportunity to cure deficiencies violates the principles of natural justice.
- Whether the order should be set aside and the matter remitted for a fresh decision.
Subjects
- natural justice
- administrative law
- appointment
- Shikshan Sevak
- education
- writ petition
- quashing order
- opportunity to be heard
Judgment
89-WP-12548-2025.doc
Digitally signed IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
by HARISH
HARISH VITHAL
VITHAL CHAUDHARI CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CHAUDHARI Date:
2026.09.09
13:03:20 +0530 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12548 OF 2025
Mrs. Anuradha Mukesh Nimbalkar
(Ms. Anuradha Prakash Mohite) And Another ...Petitioners.
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Thr. Secretary And Another ...Respondents.
——————
Mr. Sagar A. Mane a/w Rushikesh D. Jagdale & Neha A. Farakate for the
Petitioners.
Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : September 08, 2026.
P. C. :
1. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks
leave to amend the cause title to implead the Divisional Chairman of the
School Board. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.
Re-veriication is dispensed with.
2. The petition challenges the impugned order dated 28 th October
2025 passed by the Deputy Director of Education rejecting the
petitioner's proposal for approval to appointment of petitioner No. 1 as
Shikshan Sevak by listing certain deiciencies.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that no
Harish 1 of 3
89-WP-12548-2025.doc
opportunity was given to the management to cure the deiciencies and
the approval has been rejected.
4. Perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the rejection is
by reason of the deiciencies noted therein and it would have been
appropriate if an opportunity had been given to the management to
cure the deiciencies so that a proper decision could be taken on the
proposal.
5. As no opportunity was given to the management, we are inclined
to set aside the impugned order dated 28 th October 2025 to the extent
that it rejects the proposal and remit the matter to the Deputy Director
of Education to decide the proposal afresh after giving an opportunity
to the management to cure the deiciencies.
6. The impugned order dated 28th October 2025 to the extent of
rejection of the proposal is quashed and set aside. The management
shall cure the deiciencies within a period of two weeks from today.
7. In the event the proposal is approved by respondent No. 2,
appropriate steps shall be taken by respondent No. 2 for forwarding the
proposal to the newly added respondent No. 3 for including the name of
petitioner No. 1 in the Shalarth Pranali and for the allotment of a
Shalarth ID. The proposal for approval to be decided within a period of
six weeks after the submission of the compliances by the management.
8. In event, the proposal is approved, the inclusion of the petitioner
Harish 2 of 3
89-WP-12548-2025.doc
No.1’s name in the Shalarth Pranali and allotment of Shalarth-Id to be
carried out within a period of three weeks thereafter. The release of
grant-in-aid within a period of three weeks thereafter.
9. The petition is allowed in the above terms.
[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Harish 3 of 3
Checking your session…