25 wp 6917-25.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6917 OF 2025 Megha Bhaskar Mule .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Ms. Kirthika i/b. Ajay Joshi for the Petitioner. Mr. Kushal Amin, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for the Respondent-State. CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ. DATE: 7th JULY, 2025 P. C. 1. A proposal dated 16th September, 2022 is pending decision with Respondent No.3 for a grant of approval to the appointment of the Petitioner who was first appointed on a ‘no grants’ basis post, on 15th June, 2011. Later on, he was transferred to the ‘grant in aid’ establishment on 8th September, 2022. Respondent No.3 is Mr. Sachin Jagtap who has faced large number of cases in this Court, either on account of delaying the matters and not Laxmi 1 LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE Digitally signed by LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE Date: 2025.07.10 12:30:06 +0530 25 wp 6917-25.odt discharging duties expeditiously or for disobeying the orders of this Court by appearing before the Court in contempt cases. 2. Mr. Amin, ‘B’ Panel Counsel submits that Respondent No.3 would decide this proposal expeditiously. 3. We have noticed in such matters that firstly, the Education Officer sits over such proposals and does not decide them expeditiously. Secondly, if he is required to decide the proposals under an order of this Court, he raises objections with regard to deficiencies. Thereafter, a revised proposal has to be submitted by the Management. Keeping such instances in mind, we direct Respondent no.3 to scrutinize the Proposal dated 16th September, 2022 and if any objections are to be raised, the same shall be raised within a period of 21 days from today and shall be conveyed to the Management on its email address. Thereafter, the Management would submit a revised proposal by removing the deficiencies within a period of 21 days. After the revised proposal is tendered, Respondent No.3 would pass a reasoned order on the merits of the proposal, within a period of 30 days. Laxmi 2 25 wp 6917-25.odt 4. We caution the said Education Officer that in future if such instances are brought to our notice, we would be compelled to direct appropriate action by invoking section 10 of the The Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005. 5. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed off. [GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.] Laxmi 3