Bombay High Court

MS. URMILA SUBHASH SHIRKE (MRS. URMILA VIKAS JADHAV) AND ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. SECRETARY AND ANR.

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The order rejecting the proposal is quashed and set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Deputy Director of Education to decide afresh after giving the management an opportunity to cure the deficiencies.

Summary

The petitioners, Ms. Urmila Subhash Shirke and another, challenged the Deputy Director of Education's order dated 28 October 2025 which rejected their proposal to transfer from an unaided to a fully aided Shikshan Sevak post on the ground of certain deficiencies. The petitioners argued that they were not given any opportunity to rectify the alleged deficiencies before the rejection. The Court held that the failure to provide a chance to cure the deficiencies violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the rejection and remitted the matter to the Deputy Director to reconsider the proposal after allowing the management to cure the deficiencies within two weeks. The Court also directed timelines for further procedural steps, including inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the Shalarth Pranali and grant‑in‑aid release, should the proposal be approved.

Issues considered

Whether the order rejecting the transfer proposal without affording an opportunity to cure deficiencies violates principles of natural justice
Whether the impugned order can be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration

Subjects

transfer of Shikshan Sevak
natural justice
opportunity to be heard
administrative law
education
grant-in-aid
Shalarth Pranali

Judgment

89-WP-12549-2025-2.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. 12549 OF 2025

Ms. Urmila Subhash Shirke
(Mrs. Urmila Vikas Jadhav) 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 petitioner 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 transfer from an unaided post to fully aided

post of Shikshan Sevak by listing certain deiciencies.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that no

Harish 1 of 3
89-WP-12549-2025-2.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.

In event, the proposal is approved, the inclusion of the petitioner No.1’s

Harish 2 of 3
89-WP-12549-2025-2.doc

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.

8. The petition is allowed in the above terms.

[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Harish 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…