Bombay High Court
SIDDHI SANDIP KARIWADEKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND ORS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The order rejecting the petitioner's appointment is quashed to the extent it was made without granting an opportunity to cure the identified deficiencies.
Summary
The petitioner, Siddhi Sandip Kariwadekar, challenged the rejection of his appointment as a part‑time teacher by the Education Officer on 20 September 2022, alleging that he was not given a chance to remedy the deficiencies cited. The respondents argued that the deficiencies were of a nature that could not be cured, justifying the rejection. The Court examined whether the procedural requirement of granting an opportunity to cure deficiencies had been complied with. Finding that no such opportunity was afforded, the Court held that the order should be set aside to the extent it rejected the proposal. The Court directed that the petitioner be given four weeks to cure the deficiencies, after which the Education Officer must decide within two weeks, and if approved, the Deputy Director of Education must issue the requisite ID within three weeks. The petition was disposed with these directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the rejection of the petitioner's appointment without an opportunity to cure alleged deficiencies violates principles of natural justice
- Whether the order of the Education Officer can be quashed on procedural grounds
Subjects
- appointment
- part‑time teacher
- procedural fairness
- opportunity to be heard
- administrative law
- quash order
Judgment
21-WP-867-2025(C).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 867 OF 2025
Siddhi Sandip Kariwadekar ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents
——————
Mr. Prashant Bhavake, for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. I. Patel, Addl. G.P. a/w Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-
State.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : August 17th , 2026.
P. C. :
1. The grievance of the Petitioner is that without giving an
opportunity to the Management to cure the deiciency, the proposal for
appointment of the Petitioner as a part-time teacher came to be
rejected on 20th September, 2022.
2. Learned AGP would submit that certain deiciencies which are
noted in the order dated 20 th September, 2022 cannot be cured by the
Management and by reason thereof, the proposal has been rejected.
3. The impugned order would indicate that the Education Oicer
has listed several deiciencies and has rejected the proposal on the
Digitally
signed by
SAJAKALI
SAJAKALI LIYAKAT
LIYAKAT JAMADAR
JAMADAR Date:
2026.08.17
18:20:10
+0530
Jamadar-SL 1 of 2
21-WP-867-2025(C).doc
ground of such deiciency, and there are no reasons and no discussion
to indicate that the proposal is rejected on the ground of the Petitioner
not being entitled to approval. As no opportunity was given to the
Management to cure the deiciency, it would be appropriate to quash
and set aside the order dated 20 th September, 2022 to the extent that it
rejects the proposal. As the deiciencies have been noted in the order
dated 20th September, 2022, an opportunity is given to the Petitioner
and the Management to cure the deiciencies within a period of four
weeks from today.
4. In the event that the deiciencies are cured, the Education Oicer
to take a decision on the Petitioner's proposal within a period of two
weeks thereafter.
5. In the event that the proposal is approved, the Deputy Director of
Education to issue the Shalarth ID to the Petitioner within a period of
three weeks thereafter.
6. The Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Jamadar-SL 2 of 2
Checking your session…