Bombay High Court
SUNIL SURESH HUBALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRO. THE SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SPORTS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Director's communication cannot be applied retrospectively, and the order rejecting the petitioner's appointment is quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, Sunil Suresh Hubale, was appointed as a teacher on 10 December 2024, but his proposal for approval was rejected by the Education Officer on 23 June 2025 relying on a communication from the Director of Education dated 28 May 2025. The petitioner challenged the rejection, arguing that the Director's communication, which barred fresh appointments until staff justification for the 2024-2025 academic session was completed, could not be applied retrospectively to his earlier appointment. The Court examined the timeline and held that the communication came into existence after the appointment and therefore could not be applied retroactively. Consequently, the Court quashed the Education Officer’s order of rejection and directed the Officer to consider the petitioner's proposal afresh on its merits, without the effect of the Director’s communication. The writ petition was disposed of without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the Director of Education's communication dated 28 May 2025 can be applied retrospectively to an appointment made on 10 December 2024.
- Whether the Education Officer was justified in rejecting the petitioner's proposal for approval based on that communication.
- Whether the order dated 23 June 2025 rejecting the appointment should be set aside.
Subjects
- appointment
- education officer
- retrospective application
- administrative law
- writ petition
- quashing order
- staff justification
- academic session
- Zilla Parishad
Judgment
916-WP-10162-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.10162 OF 2025
Sunil Suresh Hubale ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
——————
Mr. Prashant Bhavake, for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP, for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Utkarsh Desai, for Respondent Nos.6 & 7.
——————
Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar &
Pravin S. Patil, JJ.
Date: March 18, 2026
P.C.:
1. In the present Writ Petition, the challenge is to the Order of the
Education Oicer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur dated 23rd June
2025, solely on the ground that the reliance placed by the Education
Oicer on communication of the Director of Education dated 28th May
2025 while rejecting the proposal, is not applicable to the case of the
Petitioner and, therefore, seeks indulgence of this Court in the matter.
2. In the present case, it is pointed out by the Petitioner that, after
creation of the vacancy on 26th September 2024, a communication was
made to the Education Oicer for grant of permission to ill up the
post. However, there was no response from the Education Oicer and,
therefore, an advertisement was issued. Then by following due
procedure of law and in pursuance of resolution of management,
Arjun 1 of 4
916-WP-10162-2025.doc
Appointment Order dated 10th December 2024 was issued in favour of
the Petitioner.
3. After the appointment, the proposal of Petitioner was
forwarded to the Education Oicer for approval on 20th May 2025. The
Education Oicer, in view of communication from the Director of
Education dated 28th May 2025, rejected the proposal. Hence,
Petitioner approached before this Court.
4. The learned AGP has strongly opposed the Petition. According to
him, the appointment of the Petitioner was made during the academic
session 2024-2025 and, therefore, the communication of Director of
Education dated 28th May 2025 is applicable to the appointment of the
Petitioner.
5. After hearing both the parties, we have perused the record and
found that the appointment of the Petitioner was made by the
management vide Appointment Order dated 10th December 2024 and
the proposal was forwarded on 20th May 2025. Therefore, the
Management, in any case, was not aware about the communication of
the Director of Education, because the same was not in existence till
the date of the appointment of the Petitioner in the school. The said
communication came into existence on 20th May 2025. Therefore, such
communication cannot be made applicable retrospectively in the
matter.
Arjun 2 of 4
916-WP-10162-2025.doc
6. The perusal of communication dated 28th May 2025, states that
as the procedure to issue staf justiication of academic session 2024-
2025 is going on, therefore, unless the details of sanctioned post,
surplus post, etc. are not received, till then Educational Authorities
should not grant permission for fresh appointment. However, in the
present case, appointment of Petitioner has already been done on 10th
December 2024. Therefore, on facts also appointment of Petitioner
being made before the instructions issued by Director of Education,
the same is not applicable in the matter. Consequently, impugned
Order does not survive in the matter.
7. In the present matter, Education Oicer did not touch to the
merits of proposal. According to our considered opinion, the matter is
required to remitted back to Education Oicer to decide the proposal
of approval of Petitioner on its own merits.
8. Hence, we passed the following Orders.
i. The Order of rejecting approval of Petitioner dated 23rd June
2025 is hereby quashed and set aside.
ii. Education Oicer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur is directed
to decide the proposal of Petitioner dated 20th May 2025
afresh on its own merits without considering the efect of
communication of Director of Education dated 28th May 2025.
Arjun 3 of 4
916-WP-10162-2025.doc
iii. It is made clear that we have not expressed our opinion on the
merits of proposal of approval, hence all the issues are expressly
kept open except the efect of communication dated 28th May
2025.
9. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
[Pravin S. Patil, J.] [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.]
Arjun 4 of 4
Checking your session…