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 Patil ) ...Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, School Edu. And Sports Dept. And Ors ...Respondents —————— 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 4th 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 2026:BHC-KOL:7817-DB 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 4th 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