Bombay High Court Directs Approval of Appointment Proposal Pending Since 2012 in Education Service Matter — Administrative Officer's Repeated Returns of Proposal Held Unjustified and Arbitrary. The court held that the repeated returns of the proposal by the Administrative Officer since 2012 were arbitrary and directed the officer to decide the proposal within four weeks.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: KOLHAPUR In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-19 12:07:16

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Mrs. Padma Sambhaji Patil, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Kolhapur challenging the repeated return of her appointment approval proposal by the Administrative Officer (Primary), Primary Education Department, Kolhapur Municipal Corporation, since 2012. The petitioner was appointed as a teacher by the management, but the proposal for approval of her appointment was repeatedly returned by the Administrative Officer for various reasons without any final decision. The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to approve her appointment. The court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Assistant Government Pleader for the State, and the counsel for the Administrative Officer. The court noted that the proposal had been pending since 2012 and that the Administrative Officer had been returning it repeatedly without justification. The court observed that such repeated returns amounted to arbitrary exercise of power and caused undue hardship to the petitioner. The court directed the Administrative Officer to decide the proposal within four weeks from the date of the order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the management. The court also directed that the decision be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Appointment Approval - Delay - The petitioner's appointment proposal was repeatedly returned by the Administrative Officer since 2012 without final decision - The court held that the repeated returns were unjustified and arbitrary - The court directed the Administrative Officer to decide the proposal within four weeks - Held that the delay was unreasonable and the officer must act in accordance with law (Paras 2-5).

Issue of Consideration

Whether the repeated return of the approval proposal for appointment of the petitioner by the Administrative Officer since 2012 is justified and whether the court should direct the respondent to decide the proposal.

Final Decision

The court directed the Administrative Officer (Primary), Primary Education Department, Kolhapur Municipal Corporation, to decide the proposal for approval of the petitioner's appointment within four weeks from the date of the order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the management, and communicate the decision to the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of.

Law Points

Administrative delay
Arbitrary exercise of power
Direction to decide proposal
Writ of mandamus

Case Details

2026:BHC-KOL:1041-DB

Writ Petition No.9833 of 2025

2026-02-09

Nitin B. Suryawanshi, Ajit B. Kadethankar

2026:BHC-KOL:1041-DB

Chetan G. Patil, Prathamesh P. Magadum, Gajraj A. Mali, Mandar G. Bagkar, A.P. Vanarase, Bhushan S. Jadhav

Mrs. Padma Sambhaji Patil

The State of Maharashtra, The Deputy Director of Education, Administrative Officer (Primary), Shivsmarak Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Jijamata Mahila Vidyapeeth

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging repeated return of appointment approval proposal by the Administrative Officer.

Remedy Sought

Direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner.

Filing Reason

The approval proposal for the petitioner's appointment was repeatedly returned by the Administrative Officer since 2012 without final decision.

Issues

Whether the repeated return of the approval proposal by the Administrative Officer is justified. Whether the court should direct the respondent to decide the proposal.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner's counsel argued that the proposal has been pending since 2012 and repeatedly returned without justification. Respondent's counsel argued that the proposal was returned for valid reasons.

Ratio Decidendi

The repeated return of the approval proposal without final decision for over a decade amounts to arbitrary exercise of power and is unjustified. The court can direct the authority to decide the proposal within a reasonable time.

Judgment Excerpts

Since 2012, the approval is kept pending by the Administrative Officer for this or that reason. The repeated return of the proposal is nothing but an arbitrary exercise of power.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.9833 of 2025 before the Bombay High Court at Kolhapur challenging the repeated return of the appointment approval proposal. The court heard the parties and disposed of the petition with directions.