Bombay High Court
SOU. ARATI RAVINDRA MANVAR ( NEE ARATI SURESH GORAD)versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDU. AND SPORTS DEPT. THOU SECRETARY
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Education Officer must reconsider the appointment proposals on their merits, without regard to the erstwhile internal trust dispute, and may grant approval if the proposals comply with law.
Summary
The petitioners challenged an order dated 2 December 2021 in which the Education Officer rejected their appointment proposals to institutions run by the trust, citing a dispute between rival factions of the trust. The rival factions later submitted that the dispute had been resolved and they no longer objected to the appointments. The court observed that the Education Officer had focused on the internal dispute rather than assessing the proposals on their legal merits. Consequently, the court directed the Education Officer to reconsider the proposals afresh, ignoring the resolved dispute, and to decide within three weeks. The court further ordered that, upon approval, the petitioners' names be entered in the Shalarth Pranali, IDs issued within two weeks, and arrears of grant‑in‑aid salary released within three weeks. The petitions were allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Education Officer erred in rejecting appointment proposals solely on the basis of an internal trust dispute.
- Whether the Education Officer must reassess the proposals on their merits when the dispute is no longer existent.
- Whether the court can direct the Education Officer to re‑evaluate the proposals within a specified time frame.
Subjects
- trust dispute
- education officer
- appointment approval
- writ petition
- Shalarth Pranali
- grant‑in‑aid salary
Judgment
2026:BHC-KOL:9422-DB
24-WP-10256-2022(C).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10256 OF 2022
Sou. Arati Ravindra Manvar ( Nee: Arati Suresh Gorad) ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11478 OF 2022
Shri. Sagar Subhash Shendage ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents
——————
Mr. Prashant Bhavake, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Pankaj Deokar, for the Respondent No.5– Zilla Parishad.
Mr. S. R. Vasekar i/by Mr. S. A. Rajeshirke for Respondent No.6.
Mr. Utkarsh Desai for the Respondent No.7 – Management.
Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : September 30, 2026.
P. C. :
1. Both the Petitions challenge the common order dated 2 nd
December, 2021, passed by the Education Officer, rejecting the
proposals submitted for approval to the appointments of the
Petitioners in the institutions run by Respondent Nos.6 and 7, on the
ground of dispute between rival factions in the Trust.
Jamadar - SL 1 of 3
24-WP-10256-2022(C).doc
2. Perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the only
reason for rejection of the proposal is the dispute between the rival
factions of the Trust.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the rival factions, on
instructions, submits that subsequently change reports have come to be
allowed and neither of them has any objection to the approval being
granted by the Education Officer to the appointments of the
Petitioners.
4. Though such submission is made across the bar, the Education
Officer firstly was not concerned with the internal dispute in the Trust
and what was required to be considered was only whether approval can
be granted to the appointments of the Petitioners in accordance with
law.
5. From the impugned order, it is evident that the Education Officer
has heard the submissions on the internal dispute extensively and has
not gone into the actual consideration as regards the approval to be
granted to the appointments of the Petitioners.
6. Be that as it may. As it is now submitted that there is no dispute
amongst the rival factions and the appointments of the Petitioners are
not disputed by the Management, the Education Officer to consider the
proposals afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law, without
Jamadar - SL 2 of 3
24-WP-10256-2022(C).doc
going into the issue as regards the change reports or the prior dispute
amongst the rival factions.
7. Though we would have been inclined to grant approval at this
stage, considering that the Education Officer has not considered any of
the aspects of the proposals in accordance with law, we deem it fit to
direct the Education Officer to consider the proposals afresh,
expeditiously, and in any event within a period of three weeks from
today.
8. It is expected that the Education Officer would not seek any
submissions regarding change reports or any issue pertaining to the
management which do not have any bearing on consideration of the
proposal seeking approval to the appointments of the Petitioners.
9. In the event, the approval is granted, Respondent No.4 to include
the names of the Petitioners in the Shalarth Pranali and issue the
Shalarth IDs within a period of two weeks thereafter. The arrears of
grant-in-aid salary to be released within a period of three weeks
thereafter.
10. The Petitions stand allowed of in the above terms.
[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Jamadar - SL 3 of 3
Checking your session…