Bombay High Court
SMT. SAVITA ABHITOSH JADHAV (NEE SAVITA DHONDIRAM PATIL )versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDU. AND SPORTS DEPT. AND ORS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The order rejecting the petitioner’s appointment is quashed and set aside, with directions to allow the petitioner and management to submit an explanation before reconsideration.
Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Savita Jadhav, challenged the order dated 4 October 2019 in which Respondent No. 5 rejected her proposal for appointment as a peon, alleging that the rejection was made without affording her or the management an opportunity to explain the cited deficiencies. The High Court examined whether the failure to provide a chance to be heard violated the principles of natural justice. Finding that no opportunity was given, the Court held that the order must be set aside. It directed that the petitioner and the management be allowed two weeks to submit explanations, after which Respondent No. 5 must reconsider the proposal. The Court clarified that this direction does not compel approval, and the matter must be decided on its merits, with further timelines for final decision and issuance of the Shalarth ID if approval is granted. The petition was subsequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the order rejecting the petitioner’s appointment without a prior opportunity to be heard violates the principles of natural justice
- Whether the impugned order can be quashed and set aside
Subjects
- natural justice
- due process
- appointment
- administrative law
- writ petition
- quashing order
- opportunity to be heard
Judgment
2026:BHC-KOL:7817-DB
17-WP-6912-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6912 OF 2024
Smt. Savita Abhitosh Jadhav (Nee Savita Dhondiram ...Petitioner
Patil )
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, ...Respondents
School Edu. And Sports Dept. And Ors
——————
Mr. Prashant Bhavake, for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. P. Vanarase, AGP for the Respondent-State.
Ms. Utkarsha Desai, for the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7.
——————
Coram : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
Date : AUGUST 20, 2026
P. C. :
1. By the present Petition, the challenge is to the order dated 4 th
October, 2019, by which Respondent No. 5 rejected the proposal
submitted for the approval of the Petitioner to the post of peon by
citing certain deficiencies.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent
No. 5 rejected the proposal without giving the Petitioner and the
management an opportunity to submit an explanation regarding the
cited deficiencies. He submits that there is sufficient justification for the
deficiencies noted in the impugned order and requests that an
Arya Chavan 1 of 3
17-WP-6912-2024.doc
opportunity be given to cure the deficiencies.
3. Considering that no opportunity was given to the Petitioner and
the management to comply with the deficiencies or to submit an
explanation for the deficiencies noted, it would be appropriate if an
opportunity is given, so that proper explanation can be submitted to
Respondent No. 5.
4. In light of the above, the impugned order dated 4 th October, 2019,
to the extent that it rejects the approval to the Petitioner’s
appointment, is quashed and set aside. The Petitioner and Respondent
Nos. 6 and 7 to submit an explanation to Respondent No. 5 within a
period of two weeks from today addressing the deficiencies noted in
the impugned order dated 4th October, 2019. In the event, if sufficient
explanation submitted, Respondent No. 5 to consider the proposal
afresh.
5. It is clarified that the directions of this Court are solely for the
purpose of granting an opportunity to the Petitioner and the
management to submit an explanation, and the same should not be
construed as a direction to Respondent No. 5 to grant approval. The
application to be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law.
6. As the rejection is of the year 2019, the management to submit an
explanation within a period of two weeks, and Respondent No. 5 to
decide the application within a period of four weeks thereafter. In the
Arya Chavan 2 of 3
17-WP-6912-2024.doc
event, approval is granted, Respondent No. 4 to include the name of the
Petitioner in the Shalarth Pranali and issue a Shalarth ID to the
Petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter, and pay the arrears
payable in accordance with the law within a period of three weeks
thereafter.
7. The Petition stands disposed of.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]
Arya Chavan 3 of 3
Checking your session…