32-11715-2025-CWP=.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11715 OF 2025 Ishwar Narayan Gavandi … Petitioner Versus The State of of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents …………. Mr. Utkarsh Desai for the Petitioner. Mr. Abhijit M. Adagule a/w Mr. Ketan K. Patil i/b Ketaki Patil for the Respondent No.5 – Kolhapur Municipal Corporation. Mr. Rahul Khot for the Respondent No.6 Ms. T.J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent - State. …………. Coram : M. S. Karnik & Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ. Date : December 05, 2025. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner possesses the qualiication of H.S.C. D.Ed. He would submit that the petitioner belongs to VJNT category. By following due procedure of law, the respondent No.6 – Management published an advertisement dated 1st June 2010 in daily ‘Sakal’ inviting applications for appointment to the post of ‘Shikshan Sevak’ in the respondent No.7 Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 3 UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Digitally signed by UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Date: 2025.12.08 14:22:49 +0530 32-11715-2025-CWP=.doc – School. Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the respondent No.6 – school management appointed the petitioner on the subject matter post of Shikshan Sevak vide its appointment order dated 11th November 2010. He would further submit that on 8th January 2014 the respondent No.5 – Administrative Oicer acknowledged the proposal submitted by the school management for approval to the post of petitioner’s appointment. He would further submit that the petition was iled seeking directions to the respondent authorities to decide the proposal iled for approval to his appointment. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 – Kolhapur Municipal Corporation submitted aidavit- in-reply today, which starts from page No.67 and ends at page No.70. He would further submit that a vide letter dated 13th August 2014 itself the respondent No.5 – Kolhapur Municipal Corporation has raised some queries and showed some deiciencies to the school management for which the approval was not granted them. Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 – school management makes a statement before the Court that for some reasons the deiciencies could not be resolved by the school management. However, he makes a statement that the school management would resolve such queries and would clear those Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 3 32-11715-2025-CWP=.doc deiciencies within a period of 8 weeks from today. 4. Mr. Adgule, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 – Kolhapur Municipal Corporation would submit that on receipt of compliance of the queries and deiciencies, the respondent No.5 would adjudicate the proposal iled by the school management seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner within a period of 4 weeks thereafter. 5. In view of this, taking such statements on record, we dispose of the Writ Petition. 6. It is made clear that all contentions are kept open. Even after compliance of the deiciencies, still the respondent no.5 – Kolhapur Municipal Corporation inds some queries or wants some explanation, an opportunity shall be given to the petitioner as also to the school management. 7. Needless to mention, if the respondent No.5 grants approval to the appointment of the petitioner, Shalarth ID shall be processed accordingly and salary shall be released within a period of 2 weeks thereafter. [Ajit B. Kadethankar, J. ] [ M. S. Karnik ] Uday S. Jagtap 3 of 3