24-WP-10256-2022(C).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10256 OF 2022 Sou. Arati Ravindra Manvar ( Nee: Arati Suresh Gorad) ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11478 OF 2022 Shri. Sagar Subhash Shendage ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents —————— Mr. Prashant Bhavake, for the Petitioners. Mr. Pankaj Deokar, for the Respondent No.5– Zilla Parishad. Mr. S. R. Vasekar i/by Mr. S. A. Rajeshirke for Respondent No.6. Mr. Utkarsh Desai for the Respondent No.7 – Management. Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh & Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ. Date : September 30, 2026. P. C. : 1. Both the Petitions challenge the common order dated 2nd December, 2021, passed by the Education Officer, rejecting the proposals submitted for approval to the appointments of the Petitioners in the institutions run by Respondent Nos.6 and 7, on the ground of dispute between rival factions in the Trust. Jamadar - SL 1 of 3 2026:BHC-KOL:9423-DB 24-WP-10256-2022(C).doc 2. Perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the only reason for rejection of the proposal is the dispute between the rival factions of the Trust. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the rival factions, on instructions, submits that subsequently change reports have come to be allowed and neither of them has any objection to the approval being granted by the Education Officer to the appointments of the Petitioners. 4. Though such submission is made across the bar, the Education Officer firstly was not concerned with the internal dispute in the Trust and what was required to be considered was only whether approval can be granted to the appointments of the Petitioners in accordance with law. 5. From the impugned order, it is evident that the Education Officer has heard the submissions on the internal dispute extensively and has not gone into the actual consideration as regards the approval to be granted to the appointments of the Petitioners. 6. Be that as it may. As it is now submitted that there is no dispute amongst the rival factions and the appointments of the Petitioners are not disputed by the Management, the Education Officer to consider the proposals afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law, without Jamadar - SL 2 of 3 24-WP-10256-2022(C).doc going into the issue as regards the change reports or the prior dispute amongst the rival factions. 7. Though we would have been inclined to grant approval at this stage, considering that the Education Officer has not considered any of the aspects of the proposals in accordance with law, we deem it fit to direct the Education Officer to consider the proposals afresh, expeditiously, and in any event within a period of three weeks from today. 8. It is expected that the Education Officer would not seek any submissions regarding change reports or any issue pertaining to the management which do not have any bearing on consideration of the proposal seeking approval to the appointments of the Petitioners. 9. In the event, the approval is granted, Respondent No.4 to include the names of the Petitioners in the Shalarth Pranali and issue the Shalarth IDs within a period of two weeks thereafter. The arrears of grant-in-aid salary to be released within a period of three weeks thereafter. 10. The Petitions stand allowed of in the above terms. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Jamadar - SL 3 of 3