Bombay High Court
PARIMAL SANJAY BHOSALE (PARIMAL DNYANESHWAR AWATADE) AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. THE SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SPORTS DEPT. AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The order rejecting the appointment was quashed for denial of a hearing and remitted for fresh consideration taking into account the new Government Resolution.
Summary
The petitioners challenged an order dated 9 January 2026 in which the Education Officer rejected the proposal to appoint Petitioner No.1 as junior clerk, citing deficiencies but without giving the management an opportunity to explain. The Court held that the denial of a hearing violated natural justice and that the order must be set aside. It also noted that the communication relied upon by the Education Officer was superseded by a Government Resolution dated 11 August 2026, which must be considered. The Court directed the management to remedy the listed deficiencies within two weeks and remitted the matter to the Education Officer for fresh consideration, incorporating the new resolution. Upon approval, the respondent was ordered to issue the appointment details and release the salary arrears within specified timeframes. The petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the rejection of the appointment proposal without affording the management an opportunity to be heard violates principles of natural justice.
- Whether the impugned order should be set aside in view of the supersession of the earlier communication by the Government Resolution dated 11 August 2026.
Subjects
- natural justice
- right to be heard
- appointment
- junior clerk
- government resolution
- writ petition
- High Court
- administrative law
Judgment
2026:BHC-KOL:8763-DB
906 wp-4283-26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4283 OF 2026
Smt. Parimal Sanjay Bhosale and Others. ...Petitioners.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others. ...Respondents.
——————
Mr. Utkarsh Desai i/b Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioner.
Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : September 10, 2026.
P. C. :
1. By the present petition, the limited grievance raised is about the
absence of opportunity of submitting explanation to the management
while rejecting the proposal for appointment of Petitioner No.1 to the
post of junior clerk.
2. Perusal of the impugned order dated 9 th January 2026 would
indicate that the Education Officer while considering the proposal for
grant of approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.1, has listed
several deficiencies and without giving opportunity to the management
to comply with those deficiencies, has rejected the proposal. As the
deficiencies in question would require explanation form the
management, it would have been appropriate if the management was
called upon to comply the same. As no opportunity has been given to
the management, we are inclined to quash and set aside the impugned
Patil-SR 1 of 2
906 wp-4283-26.doc
order dated 9th January 2026 to the extent it rejects the proposal for
grant of approval to the appointment of Petitioner No. 1 and remit the
same to the file of Education Officer, to be considered afresh after
giving an opportunity of hearing to the management to cure the
deficiencies. We also find from the impugned order that the Education
Officer has referred to the communication of 28th May 2025 by the
Director of Education. However, the said communication is now
superseded by Government Resolution dated 11 th August 2026, which
may be noted by the Education Officer while deciding the proposal.
3. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (Management) are directed to comply with
the deficiencies set out in the impugned order within a period of two
weeks from today. Upon the deficiencies being complied, the Education
Officer to consider the proposal afresh and in particular to take into
consideration the Government Resolution dated 11th August 2026. In
event, the approval is granted to the appointment of Petitioner No.1,
the Respondent No. 4 is directed to include the name of Petitioner No.1
in the Shalarth Pranali and issue Shalarth ID within a period of three
weeks thereafter and release the grant-in-aid salary with arrears within
a period of three weeks thereafter.
4. Petition is allowed in the above terms.
[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Patil-SR 2 of 2
Checking your session…