Bombay High Court
MR. MAHENDRA JAIRAM SHARMAversusMRS. GEETA RAJU SINGH AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court held that the Education Officer’s order rejecting the petitioner’s appointment was perverse, violated the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act and Rules, and was therefore set aside, directing approval of the appointment with back wages.
Summary
Mrs. Geeta Raju Singh, a B.A.B.Ed. graduate, joined Shri Saraswati Shikshan Sanstha's Nutan Vidya Mandir High School as a Shikshan Sevak on 16 February 2012. After completing three years of service, her proposal for permanent appointment as an Assistant Teacher was not approved; the Education Officer rejected it on 11 February 2019 citing alleged false documents, lack of workload, delayed submission, and a backlog of reserved‑category vacancies. The school management and the petitioner contended that the delay was due to internal disputes and that the petitioner had continuously performed duties, with the new headmaster eventually forwarding the pending proposal. The Court found the Education Officer’s reasons unsubstantiated and perverse, held that the rejection violated the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act and Rules, and ordered the approval of the appointment with back wages. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned order quashed, and the State directed to grant the appointment retroactively and pay arrears within eight weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether the Education Officer's order rejecting the petitioner’s permanent appointment is in conformity with the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act and Rules.
- Whether a delay in forwarding the proposal for approval can be a valid ground for denial of appointment.
- Whether the allegation of no workload assigned to the petitioner justifies rejection of the proposal.
- Whether the claim of false documents submitted by the school management warrants dismissal of the petition.
- Whether a backlog of reserved‑category vacancies can be invoked to deny appointment of an open‑category candidate.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- appointment
- permanent tenure
- back wages
- education officer
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act
- writ petition
- administrative law
- reserved category backlog
- rule 8(2)
Judgment
36-WP-2371-2020 WITH IA-16573-2022 and ORS..doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2371 OF 2020
Mrs. Geeta Raju Singh ]
Aged about 32 Years, Occupation-Service, ]
R/o. Navdurga Rahiwasi Seva Mandal, ]
Bhimnagar, Kurar Village, ]
]
Malad (East), Mumbai-400 097
].....Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
Through Secretary Education Department, ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai ]
]
]
2. The Education Inspector, ]
Brihan Mumbai, Western Region ]
I. Y. College Compound, ]
Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-400 006 ]
(Through Government Pleader) ]
]
]
3. Trustees of Shri Saraswati Shikshan
]
Sanstha through Principal Nutan Vidya Mandir ]
High School. ]
Bhimanagar, Cutting No.5, ]
Kurar Village, Malad (East), ]
Mumbai-400 097. ]
]
]
4. Kistod Rocky Rizorio,
]
aged about 65 yrs, ]
Managing Trustee/ President ]
Saraswati Shikshan Sanstha through its ]
Secretary of Nutan Vidya Mandir High School, ]
Bhimanagar, Cutting No.5, Kurar Village, ]
]
Malad East, Mumbai 400 097.
].....Respondents
Manisha 1/14
Digitally signed by
MANISHA MANISHA
BALKRISHNA
BALKRISHNA TALEKAR
TALEKAR Date: 2026.09.03
18:16:03 +0530
36-WP-2371-2020 WITH IA-16573-2022 and ORS..doc
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 16573 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2371 OF 2020
Mr. Mahendra Jairam Sharma, ]
Present Secretary since 25/8/2011 ]
of Shree Saraswati Shikshan ]
]
Prasarak Sanstha,
]
Register institution, having office at ]
Bhim Nagar, Cutting No.5, ]
Kurar Village, Malad (East), ]
Mumbai-400 097 ].....Applicant/
Intervenor
In the matter between ]
Mrs. Geeta Raju Singh, ]
]
Aged about 35 Years, Occupation-Service, ]
R/o. Navdurga Rahivashi Seva Mandal, ]
Bhim Nagar, Kurar Village, ]
Malad (East), Mumbai-400 097 ].....Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
Through the Secretary Education Department, ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032 ]
]
]
2. The Education Inspector, ]
Brihan Mumbai, Western Region ]
I. Y. College Compound, ]
Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-400 060 ]
(To be served through Government Pleader) ]
]
]
3. Trustees of Shree Saraswati Shikshan
]
Sanstha through Principal Nutan Vidya Mandir ]
High School. ]
Bhima Nagar, Cutting No.5, ]
]
Manisha 2/14
36-WP-2371-2020 WITH IA-16573-2022 and ORS..doc
Kurar Village, Malad (East), ]
Mumbai-400 097 ].....Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.9448 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2371 OF 2020
Mr. Santosh Raju Singh ]
Aged about 40 years, Occupation : Service ]
R/o Navdurga Rahiwasi seva Mandal, ]
]
Bhimanagar Kurar Village,
]
Malad-East Mumbai 400097 ].....Applicant
In the matter between ]
Mrs. Geeta Raju Singh, ]
]
Aged about 38 Years, Occupation-Service, ]
R/o. Navdurga Rahiwasi Seva Mandal, ]
Bhimnagar, Kurar Village, ]
Malad (East), Mumbai-400 097 ].....Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
Through Secretary Education Department, ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai ]
]
]
2. The Education Inspector, ]
Brihan Mumbai, Western Region ]
I. Y. College Compound, ]
Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-400 006 ]
(Through Government Pleader) ]
]
]
3. Trustees of Shri Saraswati Shikshan
]
Sanstha through Principal Nutan Vidya ]
Mandir High School. ]
Bhima Nagar, Cutting No.5, ]
Kurar Village, Malad (East), ]
Mumbai-400 097 ].....Respondents
Manisha 3/14
36-WP-2371-2020 WITH IA-16573-2022 and ORS..doc
.....
Mr. B. S. Nayak, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Jitendra Gautam, for the Applicant in IA/16573/2022.
Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, Addl. G. P., for the Respondent-State.
Ms. Sulakshana Survase, for the Respondent No.3-Management.
Mr. Neel Pungliya a/w Mr. Balaji R. Rane, for the Respondent No.4.
..…
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D.PATIL, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 13th AUGUST 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 03rd SEPTEMBER 2026
JUDGMENT [PER SANDESH D. PATIL, J.] :-
1. By the present Petition, the Petitioner is seeking quashing and
setting aside of the Order dated 11 th February, 2019 (inadvertenly
mentioned in Writ Petition as 22nd February, 2019) passed by the
Respondent No.2 and also seeking directions against the Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 to grant approval to the Petitioner with effect from 16 th
February, 2012. By virtue of an amendment, the Petitioner is seeking
back wages with effect from 16th February, 2015 from the Respondent
No.3.
Manisha 4/14
36-WP-2371-2020 WITH IA-16573-2022 and ORS..doc
2. The case of the Petitioner is that on 16 th February, 2012, she
had joined the Respondent No.3-institution as Shikshan Sevak and
was qualified as B.A.B.Ed. Despite the completion of three years of
service, the Petitioner was not made permanent as a teacher. The
Petitioner was appointed after following due process of law. The
Petitioner was working as a teacher continuously since the date of
the Petitioner’s appointment. Although the Petitioner had intimated
the Principal to send the proposal for approval, the proposal was
infact sent on 21st December, 2018 by the Petitioner herself. After the
appointment of the Petitioner, two more teachers were appointed by
the institution and granted approval by the Education Officer.
However, approval was not granted to the Petitioner. It is contended
that there were disputes between the management of the Trust, and
the Petitioner was made a victim of the said dispute.
The Education Officer has filed reply for himself and for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2. It was mentioned in the reply that the
Petition was not maintainable. It was stated that the Order dated 11th
February, 2019 (impugned Order) rejecting the approval of the
Petitioner was a reasoned Order and required no interference. Much
Manisha 5/14
36-WP-2371-2020 WITH IA-16573-2022 and ORS..doc
stress was laid on the fact that the management had forwarded the
proposal for approval to the appointment of the Petitioner almost
after seven years. It was stated that there was a backlog in reserved
categories, inspite of the said backlog, the Petitioner who is from
open category was appointed. The appointment of Petitioner as
Shishan Sevak was not as per roster. The action on the part of the
Respondent No.3 was contrary to Rule 8(2) of the Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. It
was further stated that, at the time of hearing before the Respondent
No.2 neither the management nor the Petitioner could submit work
load of the Petitioner during the period 2012-2018. They contended
that the Petition therefore, be dismissed. A rejoinder is filed by the
Petitioner to the said affidavit.
3. The Respondent No.3 has also filed a reply. The reply stated
that this school was 100% aided and therefore, it was responsibility
of the Government to pay the back wages to the teachers and that
such burden cannot be fastened on the management. It was stated
that vide letters dated 21st February, 2019 and 27th February, 2019,
the Respondent No.3 had offered explanation for the observations of
Manisha 6/14
36-WP-2371-2020 WITH IA-16573-2022 and ORS..doc
the Education Officer in its Order dated 11 th February, 2019 and
requested to reconsider the case of the Petitioner. It was stated on
oath that although it was stated by oversight in the earlier letter that
the Petitioner was not given work by the Principal, but the same was
clarified in a subsequent letter stating that the Petitioner was
working continuously in the school. The management has given an
undertaking to fill in the backlog as and when vacancy arises. The
said Respondent No.3 thus supported the case of the Petitioner.
4. The Respondent No.4 has also filed an affidavit stating that the
management had published advertisement for the post of teacher in
the Vrutta Mitra newspaper dated 14th February, 2012. Several
applications were received. Ultimately the Petitioner was appointed
as Shikshan Sevak in the 100% government aided secondary school.
The Headmaster Mr. Nathu Bapu Gajare submitted the proposal
seeking approval of the Petitioner’s appointment as a Shikshan Sevak
to the Respondent No.2. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner completed
three years of her services as a Shikshan Sevak and the school
appointed her on regular basis as an Assistant Teacher. The Head
Master Mr. Nathu Bapu Gajare was supposed to submit the proposal
Manisha 7/14
36-WP-2371-2020 WITH IA-16573-2022 and ORS..doc
seeking approval of the Petitioner’s appointment as an Assistant
Teacher to the Respondent No.2. It is further stated in the affidavit
that, several complaints were received by the management-
Respondent No.4 against the then Headmaster Mr. Nathu Bapu
Gajare. The management issued Show Cause Notice to him for
various acts of misconduct, a departmental inquiry was initiated
against him, ultimately due to ill-health the said Headmaster took
voluntary retirement with effect from 30th June, 2018.
It is further stated that, later on one Mr. Badrinath Hruday
Tiwari was appointed as Headmaster of the School. While assuming
that charge, he found that the proposal dated 23 rd April, 2018
seeking approval of the Petitioner’s appointment as a Assistant
Teacher and signed by the former Headmaster Mr. Nathu Bapu
Gajare has not been submitted to the Respondent No.2. He therefore,
immediately submitted the pending proposal to Respondent No.2 on
7th December, 2018. The said Respondent No.4 submitted that it was
the Headmaster who was supposed to make submissions for approval
and that the then Headmaster had grossly neglected his duty. The
Respondent No.4 in short supported the case of the Petitioner.
Manisha 8/14
36-WP-2371-2020 WITH IA-16573-2022 and ORS..doc
5. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
We have perused the records. It appears that there is a dispute in the
management of the Trust as a result of which the present chaos has
arisen. The Petitioner joined the Respondent No.4-Instituion as a
Shikshan Sevak on 16th February, 2012. She was qualified as
B.A.B.Ed. The Petitioner completed the period of three years on 16 th
February, 2015. However, the proposal was submitted for approval to
the Respondent No.2 on 21st December, 2018. The Respondent No.4
has given a detailed explanation as to what was the reason that
caused the delay in sending the proposal. The said explanation is
noted by us in the foregoing paragraphs. The impugned Order dated
11th February, 2019 was passed for the following reasons:
(i) The Petitioner was not employed by the management on
16th February, 2012 yet the management had created false
documents and had submitted the proposal.
(ii) There was no workload assigned to the Petitioner.
(iii) Assuming the Petitioner was appointed in the year 2012
yet there is no explanation as to why the proposal was not
Manisha 9/14
36-WP-2371-2020 WITH IA-16573-2022 and ORS..doc
submitted till the year 2018.
(iv) The Headmaster Mr. Nathu Gajare has stated that he has
not signed on the proposal of the Petitioner.
(v) The backlog of appointment was not fulfilled by the
Respondent No.4 and that by ignoring the backlog the
appointment was made.
The above are the five reasons on which the proposal was
rejected.
6. As far as the first reason of submitting a false proposal is
concerned, there is nothing on record to show that false documents
were submitted. As a matter of fact, the Respondent Nos.3 and 4
both have supported the case of the Petitioner. The conclusion
reached by the Education Officer-Respondent No.2 is totally devoid
of any reason and therefore perverse.
7. As far as the second contention that, there was no workload
assigned to the Petitioner is concerned, this finding is also totally
perverse. There is no reason given by the Respondent No.2 for
Manisha 10/14
36-WP-2371-2020 WITH IA-16573-2022 and ORS..doc
arriving at such finding as a matter of fact, the Petitioner as well as
Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have produced voluminous documents to
show that there was workload. It appears that the Respondent No.2
was swayed away by a stray statement made by the Respondent No.4
that there was no workload. The Respondent No.4 immediately filed
a clarification saying that, it was the mistake inadvertently made. In
such circumstances there is nothing to support the finding on this
issue.
8. As far as the issue of late submission of the proposal is
concerned, the Respondent No.4 has given a detailed reason as to
why the submission was made belatedly after a period of three years.
In any event, the employee of the school is not to be blamed for late
submission of the proposal. As stated above, there was a dispute
between the management and therefore, mere belated submission of
the proposal cannot be attributed as a reason for rejecting the
proposal of the teachers.
9. So far as the reason that the proposal was not signed by the
Headmaster-Mr. Nathu Bapu Gajare is concerned, affidavit of the
Respondent No.4 on this point is very elaborately explaining the
Manisha 11/14
36-WP-2371-2020 WITH IA-16573-2022 and ORS..doc
circumstances. There was a dispute between the management and
ultimately, Headmaster Mr. Nathu Bapu Gajare opted for voluntary
retirement. Even otherwise there is an appointment letter dated 16 th
February, 2012 annexed to the Petition. There is a resolution passed
by the management. In these circumstances, it would be totally
inappropriate to rely upon the statements of the parties to the
dispute, mainly Mr. Nathu Bapu Gajare who allegedly stated that he
had not signed the proposal of the Petitioner. In any event, the fact
that the proposal of the Petitioner was forwarded is not disputed.
The affidavit of the Respondent No.4 also shows that the proposal of
the Petitioner was forwarded ultimately by the new Headmaster Mr.
Badrinath Tiwari.
10. As far as the last reason regarding backlog is concerned, the
position is no more res integra. This Court has in the matter of
Namita Narayan Jha Vs. Education Officer, (Secondary) Zilla
Parishad, Gondla & Ors.1 has held that mere existence of a reserved
category backlog cannot be used as a valid ground by the Authority
to deny approval to the candidate appointed in open category.
1 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 1605
Manisha 12/14
36-WP-2371-2020 WITH IA-16573-2022 and ORS..doc
11. Thus, none of the reasons which are given in the impugned
Judgment and Order can be sustained. The impugned Judgment and
Order therefore, requires interference at the hands of this Court. We
therefore proceed to pass the following Order:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition No.2371 of 2020 is allowed.
(ii) The impugned Order dated 11th February, 2019 rejecting
the approval of the Petitioner is not in consonance with the
provisions of the MEPS Act and Rules made thereunder. The same
is accordingly quashed and set aside.
(iii) The Respondent-State is directed to forthwith allow the
proposal and grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner
with effect from 16th February, 2012.
(iv) The salary of the Petitioner along with backlog wages to
be paid to the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from
passing of this Order.
(v) Accordingly, Writ Petition No.2371 of 2020 is disposed of.
Manisha 13/14
36-WP-2371-2020 WITH IA-16573-2022 and ORS..doc
(vi) In view of disposal of Writ Petition, connected Interim
Application Nos.16573 of 2022 and 9448 of 2025 also stands
disposed of.
(SANDESH D.PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Manisha 14/14
Checking your session…