9-12613-2025-CWP-Corrected=.doc (Corrected as per Speaking to Minutes of order dated 23.12.2025, in bold) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12613 OF 2025 Amar Tanaji Patil … Petitioner Versus Principal, Sirse Highschool & Ors. … Respondents …………. Ms. Rashmi Sajanikar a/w Mr. Yuvraj Narvankar for the Petitioner. Mr. R.P. Kadam, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for the Respondent - State. …………. Coram : M. S. Karnik & Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ. Date : December 19, 2025. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Peon in the respondent No.1 – school run by the private institute namely, Shri. Rajarshri Shahu Chhatrapati Education Vikas Trust. The proposal for according approval for petitioner’s appointment was submitted to the Education Oicer (Secondary). However, the Education Oicer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur refused to accord approval to the Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 4 UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Digitally signed by UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Date: 2025.12.24 13:26:59 +0530 9-12613-2025-CWP-Corrected=.doc petitioner’s appointment, citing the existence of internal dispute of the management. 3. An aidavit-in-reply has been iled by the learned AGP. Learned AGP submitted that there are dispute / proceedings pending regarding the legitimacy of the management of the Institute. In view of the pending dispute between two rival fractions of the management, it was necessary for the parties to produce necessary order from the Charity Authorities and certiied extract from Public Trust Register before the appropriate order regarding approval of the petitioner’s appointment could be passed. 4. Learned AGP relied upon the decision of this Court in Ashwini Sushant Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. in Writ Petition No. 10894 of 2022, decided on 15th April 2024. 5. In our opinion, the decision in Ashwini Sushant Patil (supra) is distinguishable on facts. In Ashwini Sushant Patil (supra) case, as to the identity of the management, there was a debate before this Court inasmuch as two fractions of the Management claimed to be in charge. 6. In the present case, what we ind is that though there are Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 4 9-12613-2025-CWP-Corrected=.doc disputes in the Management, the proposal has been submitted by the Principal. There is nothing on record to indicate that any management is disputing consideration of the proposal for approval to the appointment of the petitioner on merits. In such view of the matter, the petitioner should not sufer only because there is a dispute within the management. 7. The petitioner has been working as a Peon in the respondent No.1 institution from 1st November 2017. The petitioner’s proposal deserves to be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. In such view of the matter, the respondent-management to resubmit the proposal within a period of 2 weeks from the date of communication of this order. The resubmitted proposal for approval of the appointment of the petitioner shall be considered by the Education Oicer (Secondary) on its own merits and in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of submission of the proposal. 8. Deiciencies, if any, in the proposal be communicated to the Management and provide an opportunity to explain / cure the deiciencies. Uday S. Jagtap 3 of 4 9-12613-2025-CWP-Corrected=.doc 9. The Writ Petition is disposed of. [Ajit B. Kadethankar, J. ] [ M. S. Karnik.J. ] Uday S. Jagtap 4 of 4