Bombay High Court
SANKET AAKARAM KAVADEversusTHE DY. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION ( PUNE DIVISION) , PUNE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court directed the second respondent to carry out a preliminary scrutiny of the appointment proposal within the prescribed timeframes, without adjudicating on its merits.
Summary
The petitioner, Sonali Milind Patil, filed a writ petition seeking directions for the approval of her appointment proposal pending before the Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division, and the Pune Zilla Parishad. The court noted that the proposal required detailed verification and scrutiny by the second respondent. It ordered the second respondent to conduct a preliminary scrutiny by 15 May 2026, issue notice of any deficiencies within 7 days, allow the management to submit a revised proposal within 21 days, and render a reasoned order within 30 days of receiving the revised proposal. The court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the proposal. Consequently, the petition was disposed with these procedural directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the court may direct the administrative authority to conduct a preliminary scrutiny of an appointment proposal within a specified timeline.
- Whether the writ petition seeking such directions is maintainable.
Subjects
- writ petition
- appointment proposal
- preliminary scrutiny
- government education department
- administrative law
- directions
Judgment
905-WP-4702-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SONALI
MILIND WRIT PETITION NO. 4702 OF 2026
PATIL
Digitally signed by Sanket Aakaram Kavade ….Petitioner
SONALI MILIND PATIL
Date: 2026.05.04
18:59:59 +0530 Versus
The Dy. Director of Education
(Pune Division), Pune & Ors. ….Respondents
Mr. Saurabh Pakale a/w. Mr. Nilesh Desai i/b. Ms. Padmaja
Malgaonkar, for the Petitioner.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl. GP a/w. Ms. P. M. Joshi- Deshpande, AGP
for the Respondent, State.
Mr. S. V. Gavand, for Respondent No.2, Zilla Parishad, Pune.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
DATE : 30th APRIL, 2026
P.C.:
1. The learned Advocate Shri Gavand, who is on the Panel
of the Pune Zilla Parishad, is present in the Court Hall. Considering
that this Petition is filed purely for seeking directions, we requested
him to cause his appearance on behalf of the Zilla Parishad. It is in
these circumstances that he has appeared in the matter.
Sonali 1 of 3
905-WP-4702-2026.odt
2. The Petitioner’s proposal forwarded by the
Management seeking approval to his appointment, is pending
adjudication with Respondent No.2. The learned Additional
Government Pleader submits that the pending proposal would be
decided on its own merits, after conducting a meticulous verification
and scrutiny, within a timeline as this Court may grant.
3. In view of the above, this Petition is disposed off with
the following directions:
a) The second Respondent would make a
preliminary scrutiny of the said proposal on or
before 15/05/2026.
b) After scrutiny, if he notices any deficiencies, he
would issue a notice to the Management on their
email address and communicate the deficiencies
within 7 days.
c) Thereafter, the Management would be at liberty
to tender a revised proposal, after removal of all
deficiencies, within a period of 21 days.
Sonali 2 of 3
905-WP-4702-2026.odt
d) After the second Respondent receives the
revised proposal, a proper scrutiny and verification
in accordance with the Rules, Policies and the
Government Resolutions as may be applicable, shall
be carried out and a reasoned order on the proposal
would be passed within a period of 30 days.
4. We make it clear that we have not expressed any
opinion upon the pending proposal and the concerned authority
would be at liberty to deal with the proposal on its merits.
(HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Sonali 3 of 3
Checking your session…