Bombay High Court

JAI SHIVRAI EDUCATION SOC THR ITS PRESIDENT AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY AND ORS

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

An order rejecting an appointment without affording the management an opportunity to be heard is violative of natural justice and must be set aside.

Summary

The petitioners, represented by Jai Shivrai Education Society, challenged a High Court order dated 11‑01‑2023 that rejected the approval of an unaided Assistant Teacher appointment on the ground of alleged deficiencies. They contended that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the management to address these deficiencies. The Court examined the order and found that the Education Officer had indeed denied a hearing, thereby breaching the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order and directed that the management be given a two‑week period to remedy the deficiencies, after which the Education Officer must reconsider the proposal within four weeks. The petition was thereafter disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the rejection of the unaided Assistant Teacher appointment without granting a hearing violates the principles of natural justice
Whether the impugned order dated 11‑01‑2023 should be set aside

Subjects

natural justice
right to hearing
appointment
unaided post
education
writ petition
quash order

Judgment

                                                         16-WP-16025-2024.doc


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                     WRIT PETITION NO. 16025 OF 2024
Jai Shivrai Education Soc
Thr Its President And Others                         ...Petitioners.
         Versus
State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Others ...Respondents.
                             ——————
Mr. Prashant Bhavake, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. A. A. Alaspurkar, AGP for the Respondent-State.
                                 ——————
                                  Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                          Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                   Date     : August 28, 2026.
P. C. :

1.        The submission canvassed by Mr. Bhavake, learned counsel

appearing for the Petitioners, while challenging the impugned order

dated 11.01.2023, is that without giving an opportunity to the

Management to comply with the deiciencies, the approval of Petitioner

No.3 to the unaided post of Assistant Teacher has been rejected.

2.        We have perused the order of 11.01.2023.

3.        The proposal, which was sent for approval of Petitioner No.3, who

was appointed to the unaided post of Assistant Teacher, has been

rejected by the Education Oicer by listing several deiciencies.

4.        It cannot be disputed that no opportunity of hearing was given to

the Petitioners / Management to comply with the deiciencies and the

proposal came to be rejected.



Sameer                             1 of 2
                                                          16-WP-16025-2024.doc


5.       In our view, it would be appropriate if an opportunity of hearing is

given to the Management / Petitioners to satisfy the Education Oicer

about the deiciencies cited in the impugned order and a fresh decision

be taken by the Education Oicer. The impugned order dated

11.01.2023, to the extent that it rejects the proposal, is quashed and set

aside.

6.       The Management / Petitioners to comply with the deiciencies

within a period of two weeks from today. The Education Oicer shall

thereafter consider the proposal afresh within a period of four weeks

thereafter.

7.       The petition stands disposed of accordingly.




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




Sameer                              2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…