SHANKARRAO BHIVASAN MAHAJANversusDNYANSADHANA, THROUGH SECRETARY AND ORS

                                                                    302 WP-8580-2003 @.doc



                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          WRIT PETITION NO. 8580 OF 2003

                      Dnyansadhana And Anr.                              ...Petitioners

NAVNATH                         Versus
SITARAM               Shankarrao Bhivasan Mahajan And Ors.               ...Respondents
WAGHMARE

Digitally signed by
NAVNATH SITARAM                                         WITH
WAGHMARE
Date: 2026.10.08                         CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2475 OF 2004
14:41:45 +0530
                                                        WITH
                                         CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1195 OF 2012
                                                         IN
                                          WRIT PETITION NO. 8580 OF 2003

                      Shankarrao Bhivasan Mahajan                        ...Applicant

                      IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

                      Dnyansadhana And Anr.                              ...Petitioners

                                Versus
                      Shankarrao Bhivasan Mahajan And Ors.               ...Respondents
                                                     ****
                      Mr. Ram Apte, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. M.S. Lagu and Mr. Sagar Patil
                      for the Petitioners.
                      Mr. Shaikh Nasir Masih a/w Shaikh Saad Amin for the Respondent
                      No.1.
                      Smt. A.A. Nadkarni, AGP for the Respondent /State.
                                                      ****
                                                 CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                                  DATE : 07th OCTOBER, 2026
                      P.C. :

                      1.          Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
                      impugned order. At the outset, leave is granted to the Petitioners to



                      Navnath Waghmare                                                       1
                                                  302 WP-8580-2003 @.doc



amend the description of Respondent No.3 to make it the ‘Deputy
Director of Education, Mumbai Region, Mumbai’ as admittedly, the said
authority is now the concerned Authority. Amendment be carried out
during the course of the day.
2.          By this petition, Petitioners ( Management and College) are
challenging the judgment and         order dated 08.07.2003 passed by
President,     One   Member     Grievance   Committee      for     entertaining
complaints of Shikshan Sevak (Place : Mumbai) in Appeal No. 37 of
2002. By the said impugned order, the appeal filed by the Respondent
No.1 was allowed thereby setting aside termination of Respondent No.1
with effect from 26.03.2002 and directing the Petitioners to reinstate
Respondent No.1 in service as Shikshan Sevak and further directing the
Petitioners to pay salary of the Respondent No. 1 to the extent of 30%
from the date of termination till reinstatement. The Deputy Director of
Education was also directed to grant approval to appointment of
Respondent No.1 as Shikshan Sevak and release funds, except funds
from the date of termination till reinstatement. The Grievance
Committee also terminated the appointment of present Respondent
No.2- Smt. Pallavi Deshpande, who was appointed in the place of
Respondent No.1.
3.          Learned senior Advocate for the Petitioners submitted that the
appointment of Respondent No.1 was purely on temporary basis and
was not made following necessary procedure because pursuant to the
advertisement issued in July 2000, he did not appear for the interview
and it is only after one of the existing teacher (Mr. Ghumatkar) got
terminated, the Respondent No. 1 had applied for being appointed. He
submitted that the appointment of Respondent No. 1 in August 2000
was a mid-term appointment which was ad-hoc and purely temporary
as there was no time to follow the procedure. He further submitted that


Navnath Waghmare                                                            2
                                               302 WP-8580-2003 @.doc



Respondent No. 1 was informed that his appointment has come to an
end in the year 2000-2001. He further submitted that Petitioners again
issued advertisement in June 2001 for appointment of regular
candidate. He submitted that Respondent No.1 participated in the
process of selection; however, he was rejected by the selection
committee. He further submitted that thereafter Respondent No. 1 has
joined some other institute; however, after some time, he left the said
job and again contacted the Petitioners requesting for appointment,
when he was appointed on clock hour basis. He further submitted that
the work of Respondent No. 1 was not satisfactory and there were
complaints, and ultimately Respondent No. 1 was terminated on
26.03.2002.
4.           On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No.1
strongly opposed the case on merits. He submitted that he had filed
Writ Petition No. 2086 of 2002 challenging the illegal conversion of
status of Respondent No. 1 from the post of Shikshan Sevak post to the
of CHB Lecturer. He further submitted that contention of Petitioner that
Respondent No. 1 was appointed on the post of Mr. Ghumatkar (on ad-
hoc temporary basis) is false and misleading. He submitted that
Respondent No.1 belongs to OBC category and was rightly and
regularly appointed on the post. He further submitted that Respondent
No.1 has a logbook, which shows that he was allotted full workload. He
also submitted that from the documents produced by Respondent No.2 -
(Smt. Pallavi Deshpande), it can be seen that her appointment was in
unaided division. He further submitted that so called receipt dated
04.09.2001 relied upon by the Petitioner-Management (about alleged
payment to Respondent No.1) is forged one and does not bear the
signature of Respondent No.1. He asserted that the impugned order is
correct, legal and valid.


Navnath Waghmare                                                        3
                                                 302 WP-8580-2003 @.doc



5.          It is not disputed that the Respondent No. 1 being aggrieved
by his termination dated 26.03.2002, had initially filed Writ Petition No.
2086 of 2002, however, withdrew the same and filed Appeal No. 37 of
2002 before the Grievance Committee. It is also not disputed that the
Petitioners/Management appeared before the Grievance Committee and
contested the appeal. It is also not disputed that by the impugned order
the Grievance Committee has passed an order as explained above.
6.          Learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner relied on the
judgment of the Secretary Sri. A. P. D. Jain Pathshala and others Vs.
Shivaji Bhagwat More & Ors in Civil Appeal No. 4988 of 2011 and in
Civil Appeal No. 4989 of 2011 dated 04.07.2011 of Hon'ble Supreme
Court (Copy downloaded from the website of the Supreme Court). He
submitted that during pendency of the petition, the decision of the
Grievance Committee has been held as not enforceable and its stature
has been reduced to mere recommendation that can be made to the
Education Department. He therefore submitted that in any case, the
impugned order cannot be enforced and it is only the State Government
that can consider it as a recommendation.
7.          Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has pointed out
from Paragraph No. 21 to 23 of the above judgment that the State
Government can consider the order of the Grievance Committee as an
opinion or recommendation and can take appropriate action against the
Management. He also relied on an order dated 25.03.2025 passed by
the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1621 of 2003, to
which this Court (M.M. Sathaye, J.) was also party. He pointed out that
in similar circumstances, this Court has directed the concerned
Education Authority to consider the decision given Grievance
Committee and take appropriate steps/action.
8.          I have considered the submissions and perused the judgment


Navnath Waghmare                                                          4
                                                   302 WP-8580-2003 @.doc



of Secretary Sri. A. P. D. Jain Pathshala (Supra). By the said Judgment,
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :


      "21. If a Grievance Committee opines that the termination or
      cancellation of appointment of a Shikshan Sevak was bad, the
      State Government may consider such opinion/recommendation
      and if it decides to accept it, take appropriate action by
      directing the school to take back the Shikshan Sevak, and if
      the school fails to comply, take such action as is permissible
      including stoppage of the grant. An opinion by the Grievance
      Committee that the termination of the services of a Shikshan
      Sevak is illegal can not however have the effect of either
      reinstating the employee into service, nor deemed to be a
      declaration that the Shikshan Sevak continues to be an
      employee of school. Even if a Shikshan Seyak is wrongly
      removed, the department could only direct the school to take
      him back into service and if it does not comply, take action
      permissible in law for disobedience of its directions.


      22. Therefore the decision of the committee dated 28.7.2006 is
      not    an    enforceable   or   executable     order       but        only       a
      recommendation that can be made the basis by the Education
      Department to issue appropriate directions. It is needless to
      add that persons aggrieved by such directions of the state
      government will be entitled to challenge such directions either
      before the civil court or in a writ proceedings.


      23. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed and the
      orders dated 2.5.2008 and 5.8.2008, are set aside. The order
      of the Grievance Committee is treated as a recommendation
      rendered for the benefit of the Education Department which
      can on the basis of the said opinion take appropriate action in


Navnath Waghmare                                                                   5
                                                   302 WP-8580-2003 @.doc



      accordance with law. It is also open to the Shikshan Sevak to
      seek appropriate remedy if he is aggrieved by his termination,
      in accordance with law."
                                                      (emphasis supplied)


9.          In the light of aforesaid binding law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, which is followed by the Division Bench of this Court in
order dated 25.03.2025, in my view, the Respondent No. 3 (Deputy
Director of Education, Mumbai) can be directed to consider the case.
10.         Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by passing
following order:
            (A)      Respondent No. 2 - Deputy Director of Education,
            Mumbai Region, Mumbai, shall consider the recommendations
            made in the impugned order dated 08.07.2003 in accordance
            with decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary Sri. A. P. D.
            Jain Pathshala (Supra) and take further steps accordingly. To
            facilitate such consideration, opportunity shall be given to the
            Petitioners as well as Respondent No. 1 of being heard.
            (B)      To facilitate such consideration, as aforesaid, parties
            are directed to appear before Deputy Director of Education,
            Mumbai Region, Mumbai on 14.10.2026 at 11:00 a.m.
            (C)      Decision in accordance with law be taken within 8
            weeks from that day. It is clarified that all aspects on merits,
            including rival contentions of parties about legality of
            appointment, are kept open.
            D)       Additionally, liberty as contained in paragraph 22 &
            23 of the Judgment of Supreme Court in Secretary Sri. A. P. D.
            Jain Pathshala (Supra) is also granted to parties.




Navnath Waghmare                                                            6
                                                  302 WP-8580-2003 @.doc



11.         At this stage, learned senior Advocate for the Petitioner seeks
continuation of the interim relief granted by this Court. Record indicates
that long time ago, on 08.03.2004 when the petition was admitted,
operation of the impugned order was stayed subject to condition of
Petitioners depositing arrears of backwages in this Court as per
impugned order of Grievance Committee. Admittedly, the Petitioners
have deposited the said amount in this Court. In that view of the matter,
it is further directed that during pendency of the consideration as
ordered above before the Deputy Director, the impugned order shall
remain stayed.
12.         Depending on the outcome of the decision of the Deputy
Director, parties are at liberty to move for further order in respect of
amount deposited.
13.         Rule is disposed of in above terms. No orders as to costs. In
view of the disposal of the writ petition, pending applications are also
disposed of.
14.         All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
QR verifiable copy of this order.




                                                (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




Navnath Waghmare                                                           7