66-67-WP-3111-3164-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (66) WRIT PETITION NO. 3111 OF 2026 Sangeeta Shirish Khandeparkar (nee Sangeeta Krishnat Bhosale) & Others ...Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents. WITH (67) WRIT PETITION NO. 3164 OF 2026 Aparna Chandrakatn Sawant and Others ...Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents. —————— Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioners. Mr. Atul P. Vanarase, AGP, for the Respondents-State in WP/3111/2026. Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel, AGP, for the Respondents-State in WP/3164/2026. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh & Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ. Date : August 21, 2026. P. C. : 1. The Petitioners' approval came to be rejected for non-compliance of the deiciencies by the Management. 2. Mr. Bhavake submits that the Education Oicer issued a notice on 29th November, 2024 to the Petitioners communicating certain deiciencies in the proposal and scheduled the hearing on 9th December 2024. He submits that the notice was served upon the Headmaster only Gaikwad RD 1 of 3 66-67-WP-3111-3164-2026.doc on 3rd December 2024 and, therefore, the Petitioners did not get suicient time to comply with the deiciencies before the scheduled hearing on 9th December 2024. He submits that as suicient time was not given, the Petitioners could not comply with the deiciencies and an opportunity be given to comply with the deiciencies. 3. The learned AGP would point out that as the deiciencies were not complied with, by the impugned order, the approval has been rejected. 4. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that the time to comply with the deiciencies was of a short duration, by virtue of which the Management was unable to comply with the deiciencies. Considering that it is the employees' approval which is at stake, we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to the Petitioners to comply with the deiciencies noted in the communications of 29th November 2024 and 13th December 2024. 6. The petitions have been iled in the year 2026, though the rejection is of the year 2024. We are of the opinion that an opportunity can be given subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- each to be paid to the Bombay High Court, Kolhapur Bench Bar Association Ad-hoc Committee. 7. The aforesaid amount shall be deposited in the following account Gaikwad RD 2 of 3 66-67-WP-3111-3164-2026.doc within a period of two weeks from the date of this order. The account details are as under: Name : Bombay High Court Kolhapur Bench Bar Association Ad-hoc Committee Account No. : 0003-201-0001745 Patsanstha : Shri. Gajanan Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Ltd., Patalewadi, Kolhapur. 8. As this Court is inclined to grant an opportunity to the Petitioners to comply with the deiciencies, the impugned order dated 9th December 2024, is quashed and set aside. 9. The Petitioners to comply with the deiciencies within a period of three weeks from today. The Education Oicer to decide the proposal within a period of four weeks thereafter. 10. In event, the deiciencies are complied with to the satisfaction of the Education Oicer, the approval to be granted within a period of four weeks. 11. The Respondent No.4-Deputy Director of Education to include the Petitioners' name in the Shalarth Pranali and issue Shalarth IDs in event the approval is granted, within a period of three weeks after the grant of approval and the grant-in-aid salary to be released within a period of four weeks thereafter. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Gaikwad RD 3 of 3 RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Digitally signed by RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Date: 2026.08.21 20:15:18 +0530