909 wp-7946-2022(c).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7946 OF 2022 Siddheshwar Shikshan Sanstha and Others. ...Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others. ...Respondents. —————— Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioner. Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh & Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ. Date : September 23, 2026. P. C. : 1. By the present petition, challenge is to the order dated 17th January 2022 by which the Education Officer has held that the proposal submitted seeking approval to the appointment of Petitioner on the post of junior clerk cannot be granted. 2. The contention of learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that proposal has been rejected on the ground of Government Resolution dated 4th May 2020, which imposes restrictions on consideration of proposals during the Covid pandemic on account of financial constraints. He submits that the Petitioner’s appointment is of the year 2014 and it is only the proposal which was submitted in the year 2022 and therefore Government Resolution dated 4th May 2020 would not apply to the Petitioner’s case. Patil-SR 1 of 4 909 wp-7946-2022(c).doc 3. Per contra Ms. Kapre, learned AGP would submit that by reason of the Government Resolution dated 4th May 2020, the Education Officer did not consider the proposal at all and has thereby rejected the proposal. She would submit that by reason of restrictions imposed by Government Resolution dated 4th May 2020, the proposal came to be rejected. She submits that it would be appropriate if the proposal is remitted to the file of Education Officer so that the Education Officer can consider the same afresh. 4. We have perused the impugned order dated 17th January 2022. The impugned order makes mention of Government Resolution dated 6th February 2012 which directs permission to be taken prior to the issuance of advertisement. The impugned order merely makes mention of the said Government Resolution without examining whether such procedure was followed by the management before appointing the Petitioner. Paragraph no.2 of the impugned order makes a specific reference to the Government Resolution dated 4th May 2020 and records that the said Government Resolution specifically restricts any decision to be taken on the approval in event recruitment is made. It is by reason of the restriction imposed by Government Resolution dated 4th May 2020, that the Education Officer has not considered the proposal for grant of approval to the appointment of Petitioner and has rejected the same. Patil-SR 2 of 4 909 wp-7946-2022(c).doc 5. In our considered view, it would be appropriate if the proposal is remitted to the file of Education Officer to be considered afresh as the impugned order does not indicate consideration of the proposal and rejects the proposal only on the ground of Government Resolution dated 4th May 2020. While adjudicating the proposal afresh, the Education Officer to take into consideration the fact that the Petitioner has been appointed in the year 2014 and therefore the Government Resolution dated 4th May 2020 would not apply to the case of Petitioner. The Government Resolution dated 4th May 2020 places restrictions only in event of new recruitment after the issuance of said Government Resolution. The Education Officer to consider whether the appointment of Petitioner is in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The Education Officer to also take into consideration the fact that though the Petitioner claims to have been appointed in the year 2014, the proposal has been submitted in the year 2022 and take a decision accordingly in accordance with law. 6. In the light of above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The proposal is remitted to the file of Education Officer, to be considered afresh in the light of observations made in the present order, expeditiously and in any event within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. In case of approval being granted, the Deputy Director of Patil-SR 3 of 4 909 wp-7946-2022(c).doc Education to include name of the Petitioner in the Shalarth Pranali and issue Shalarth ID within a period of 3 weeks thereafter. Arrears of grant-in-aid salary to be released from the date of submission of proposal, within a period of three weeks thereafter. 8. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Patil-SR 4 of 4