Bombay High Court

VITTHAL BHAGWAN KALE AND ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA EDUCATION DEPT. AND ORS.

Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: ACTING NANDESH SHANKARRAO DESHPANDE

Holding

The court directed the respondent to decide the pending proposal within 45 days and to communicate the decision to the petitioner within five days, without imposing exemplary costs.

Summary

The petitioners sought judicial intervention regarding a proposal for the appointment of the first petitioner, which had been pending since September 2013. The court noted that while exemplary costs could be imposed for the delay, the passage of 13 years and possible superannuation or transfer of the responsible officers precluded such costs. The learned Advocate General argued that the pending proposal should be decided by the respondent within 45 days following the legal procedure. The court disposed of the petition, directing the respondent to issue a reasoned order within 45 days and to communicate the decision to the second petitioner within five days if the decision had already been made. No costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether exemplary costs can be imposed for the prolonged delay in deciding the appointment proposal
Whether the petition merits any other relief besides a direction to decide the pending proposal

Subjects

writ petition
administrative delay
exemplary costs
appointment proposal
procedural law

Judgment

                                                            10 wp-2227-2026(c).odt




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 2227 OF 2026

Vitthal Bhagwan Kale and Another.                        ….Petitioners.
            Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others.                     ….Respondents.

                                    ----
Mr. Sharad T. Bhosale for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. P. Vanarase, AGP for the Respondent-State.
                                    ----

                              CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ.
                                               &
                                      NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.

                              DATE     : JULY 10, 2026

P.C. :-

1.             A proposal tendered by the management seeking approval to

the appointment of Petitioner No.1, dated 2nd September, 2013 is stated to

be kept pending by the Respondent No.3.



2.             If the proposal is pending, this is a fit case for imposing

exemplary costs on the concerned Education Officer (Secondary).

However, due to passage of 13 years, many of such officers may have

superannuated or may have got transferred. Hence, we are not imposing

costs.


Patil-SR.                             1 of 2
                                                              10 wp-2227-2026(c).odt




3.          Learned AGP submits that the present Respondent No.3 would

decide the pending proposal by following the procedure laid down in law,

within 45 days.



4.          In view of the above, this Petition is disposed off.



5.          Let a reasoned order be passed within 45 days and the said

order be communicated to the Petitioner No.2, Management, forthwith.



6.          In the event the proposal is already decided, but the same is

not communicated to the Petitioner No.2, Respondent No.3 shall

communicate the said decision to Petitioner No.2, within 5 days from

today.



(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)                    (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)




Patil-SR.                            2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…