Bombay High Court
SAGARKUMAR YASHWANT DADMODE AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY AND ORS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court quashed the Education Officer's order rejecting the appointment proposal and remanded the matter for reconsideration with an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners challenged the order dated 24 July 2024 of the Education Officer (Respondent No.5) which rejected the proposal to appoint petitioner No.1 as Junior Clerk, alleging procedural deficiencies and lack of hearing. The petitioners argued that the cited Government Resolution and Circular had been upheld by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5058 of 2021, and that no opportunity was given to remedy the alleged deficiencies. The Court examined the impugned order and noted that the petitioners were not afforded a chance to address the deficiencies and that the referenced resolution and circular remained valid. Consequently, the Court quashed the rejection order, restored the proposal to the Education Officer, and directed a fresh consideration with a hearing for the petitioners. The petition was thereafter disposed, with directions for the petitioner to appear within two weeks and for the Education Officer to pass an appropriate order within four weeks, including issuance of salary benefits if approved.
Issues considered
- Whether the Education Officer's rejection of the appointment proposal without granting a hearing violates principles of natural justice.
- Whether the Government Resolution and Circular cited as deficiencies are valid and binding following the decision in Writ Petition No. 5058 of 2021.
- Whether the impugned order should be set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration.
Subjects
- appointment
- junior clerk
- education officer
- procedural fairness
- natural justice
- government resolution
- government circular
- writ petition
- quash order
- remand
Judgment
15-WP-15872-2024.doc
Digitally signed IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
by HARISH
HARISH
VITHAL
VITHAL
CHAUDHARI CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CHAUDHARI Date:
2026.09.01
10:11:57 +0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 15872 OF 2024
Sagarkumar Yashwant Dadmode And Others ...Petitioners.
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Thr The Secretary And Others ...Respondents.
——————
Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioners.
Mr. R. P. Kadam, B Panel Advocate for the Respondent-State.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : August 29, 2026.
P. C. :
1. Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned
Advocate for Respondent 1 to 5.
2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the impugned order dated
24.07.2024 passed by Respondent No. 5-Education Oicer, rejecting the
proposal for approval to the appointment of the Petitioner No. 1 on the
post of Junior Clerk.
3. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed on 01.07.2024 by Petitioner No. 2
(Management). The Petitioner No. 3 Headmaster, submitted the
proposal for approval by communication dated 16.07.2024, which came
to be rejected by Respondent No. 5 (Education Oicer) by pointing out
Harish 1 of 4
15-WP-15872-2024.doc
certain deiciencies.
4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that the
deiciency mentioned in para ive (5) of the impugned order in fact
cannot be a deiciency. He submits that the Government Resolution and
Government Circular referred in para ive (5) of the impugned order
were the subject matter of a challenge before this Court in Writ Petition
No. 5058 of 2021, which came to be decided on 06.02.2024 and on the
submissions of the learned Advocate General, this Court accepted the
interpretation by the Advocate General. According to learned Advocate
for the Petitioners, no opportunity was given to the Petitioners before
rejecting the said proposal. He submits that if the matter is remanded
back, the Petitioners would put forth their case and appropriate order
thereafter can be passed.
5. The learned AGP submits that, if the matter is remanded back, the
same would be reconsidered by giving an opportunity of hearing to the
Petitioners.
6. We have gone through the said order dated 06.02.2024 at page
No. 54. The said order indicate that, the Government Resolution and
Government Circular referred in para ive (5) of the impugned order
were not set aside. The said Government Resolution and Government
Circular stand as on date. Perusal of the impugned order shows that,
there is just reference of the said Government Resolution and the
Harish 2 of 4
15-WP-15872-2024.doc
Government Circular in para ive (5). The para six (6) of the impugned
order shows that, Respondent No. 5 has observed that, the staing
pattern was not approved. Para seven (7) of the impugned order shows
the proposal was not submitted as per the checklist.
7. There is no dispute that, the order impugned is passed behind the
back of Petitioners and the Petitioners were not aforded an
opportunity to comply with the deiciencies pointed in the impugned
order. Under such circumstances, it would just and proper to remand the
matter for reconsideration by the Respondent No. 5-Education Oicer.
8. In view of the above, we proceed to pass the following order:
a) The impugned order passed by Respondent No. 5,
Education Oicer, is quashed and set aside to the
extent it rejects the proposal for approval to the
Petitioner No. 1’s appointment.
b) The proposal is restored to the ile of Respondent No.
5, Education Oicer.
c) Respondent No. 5, Education Oicer, shall reconsider
the same by giving an opportunity to the Petitioners to
comply with the deiciencies.
d) The Petitioner shall appear before Respondent No. 5,
Education Oicer, within a period of two weeks from
today.
e) Thereafter, the appropriate order shall be passed by
Harish 3 of 4
15-WP-15872-2024.doc
the Respondent No. 5- Education Oicer within a
period of four weeks, thereafter.
f) In the event of approval to the proposal by the
Respondent No. 5-Education Oicer, the name of
Petitioner No.1 shall be included in the Shalarth Pranali
and issue a Shalarth ID and consequential beneit to be
extended to the Petitioner No. 1, including the arrears
of his salary, if any, as per rules.
9. Writ Petition stands disposed of.
[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Harish 4 of 4
Checking your session…