20 wp-12558-25.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12558 OF 2025 Anita Sidramappa Hirje. ...Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others. ...Respondents. —————— Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate (through V.C.) along with Mr. Sagar Mane, Rushikesh Jagdale for the Petitioner. Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh & Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ. Date : September 11, 2026. P. C. : 1. By the present petition, rejection of the proposal seeking appointment of the Petitioner to the unaided post of Assistant Teacher is challenged. 2. By the impugned order, the reasons given by the Education Officer are the imposition of Model Code of Conduct in view of the elections and that there appears to be an internal dispute between the rival factions of management. 3. Insofar as the rejection on the ground of imposition of Model Code of Conduct is concerned, the said ground no longer survives and it is open for the Education Officer to consider the proposal for approval. It was expected that in the event, the said reason was to be taken as a Patil-SR 1 of 3 2026:BHC-KOL:8847-DB 20 wp-12558-25.doc ground, at the highest, the proposal should have been kept in abeyance, to be considered subsequently and could not have been rejected on that ground. 4. The second ground on which the rejection is premised is about the internal disputes between the rival factions of management, with which the Education Officer is not concerned. The Education Officer while considering the proposal for grant of approval is required to take into consideration, whether there is due compliance of the procedure prescribed under the MEPS Act, MEPS Rules and applicable Government Resolutions/Circulars. In event there is compliance of the same, the Education Officer is expected to grant approval to the appointment of Petitioner. Instead by the impugned order, the Education Officer has taken into consideration irrelevant factors and has rejected the proposal. 5. In the light of above, the impugned order dated 17th October 2024 is hereby quashed and set aside. The proposal is remitted to the file of Education Officer, to be considered afresh in the light of observations made hereinabove and to be decided expeditiously and in any event within a period of three weeks from today. The Education Officer to take into consideration the applicable Rules/GRs at the time of appointment of Petitioner. Patil-SR 2 of 3 20 wp-12558-25.doc 6. In case, approval is granted, Respondent No.2 to include the name of Petitioner in the Shalarth Pranali within two weeks thereafter and issue Shalarth Id within a period of two weeks thereafter. Arrears of grant-in-aid salary to be released within a period of three weeks thereafter. 7. The petition is allowed in the above terms. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Patil-SR 3 of 3