THE HIND EDUCATION SOC. MIRAJ THR. PRESIDENT AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. SEC. AND ORS

2026:BHC-KOL:9227-DB

                                                                         31-WP-10584-2022(C).doc


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 10584 OF 2022

               The Hind Education Society, Miraj                             ...Petitioners
               Through President / Secretary And Others
                         Versus
               The State of Maharashtra and Others                           ...Respondents
                                               ——————
               Mr. Prashant Bhavake, for the Petitioners.
               Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State.
                                               ——————
                                                   Coram :     Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                                               Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                                   Date      : September 24, 2026.
               P. C. :

               1.        By the present Petition, the challenge is to the impugned order

               dated 28th February, 2020, passed by Respondent No. 2 – Joint Director,

               whereby        the   Petitioners'   proposal    seeking   approval     for     the

               appointment of Petitioner No.3 to the unaided post of Instructor at

               Petitioner No. 2-Secondary School with effect from 9 th November, 2011,

               came to be rejected.

               2.        The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners would point out

               that the proposal was rejected on two grounds. Firstly, that the

               proposal was not submitted in accordance with the Government

               Resolution dated 11th March, 2010; and secondly, that before filling up

               the vacant post, prior permission was not obtained.


               Jamadar - SL                         1 of 5
                                                                  31-WP-10584-2022(C).doc


3.       Drawing the attention of this Court to the proviso to Section 5(1)

of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)

Regulation Act, 1977 (“MEPS Act”) and Rule 26 of the Maharashtra

Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981

(“MEPS Rules”), he submits that the condition of absorption of surplus

employees applies only in the case of aided schools and, in the present

case, the appointment was an unaided post of Instructor. He submits

that, therefore, the said reason for rejection is unsustainable.

4.       He would further point out that, even otherwise, the condition as

regards obtaining prior permission was introduced by Government

Resolution dated 6th February, 2012, and Petitioner No.3 has been

appointed on 9th November, 2011, i.e. prior to the issuance of the

Government Resolution. He would draw support from the decision of

this Court in the case of Vishal Tanaji Dhas & Others v. State of

Maharashtra1, wherein this Court has held that the permission from the

Education Officer will be required only where the post is an aided post.

5.       He would further submit that the rejection on the ground of non-

compliance with the procedure prescribed in the Government

Resolution dated 11th March, 2010, is extremely vague, and it is not set

out as to what procedure was not followed. He would further point out

that the Government Resolution dated 11th March, 2010, provides for

1    In Writ Petition No.19465 of 2024, dated 22nd April, 2026.


Jamadar - SL                                    2 of 5
                                                     31-WP-10584-2022(C).doc


the proposals to be submitted in the camps to be organized and the

approval cannot be rejected on such technical ground.

6.      Per contra, the learned AGP would support the impugned order

and would submit that, as the Government Resolution dated 11 th

March, 2010, provides for the proposal to be submitted in the camps

which are organized on a regular basis, there was no requirement of

sending any individual proposal to the office of the Education Officer.

She submits that, as the prescribed procedure for submission of the

proposal was not followed, the approval has been rightly rejected.

Learned AGP would further point out that there is a delay of two years

in filing of the Petition, which has not been explained.

7.      We have considered the submissions and perused the record.

8.      Perusal of the Government Resolution dated 11 th March, 2010,

indicates that, for the purpose of granting individual approvals, the

Government had resolved that, at every district level, camps would be

organized in which such proposals would be decided. Even if the

Government Resolution dated 11th March, 2010, directs the proposal to

be submitted in the camps which are duly organized, the submission of

an individual proposal to the office of the Education Officer cannot

constitute violation of any statutory rules or regulations. The Education

Officer, in discharge of his duty, is bound to consider the proposal which

is presented for approval, and merely because the same was not


Jamadar - SL                     3 of 5
                                                     31-WP-10584-2022(C).doc


submitted in the camps organized at the district level, the proposal

cannot be rejected.

9.      Insofar as the ground as to prior permission not having been

obtained prior to filling up the vacant post is concerned, the decision in

the case of Vishal Tanaji Dhas and Others (supra) squarely covers the

said issue. In the said case, on identical grounds, the Education Officer

had rejected the proposal. The Hon'ble Division Bench considered the

provisions of Section 5 of the MEPS Act and Rule 26 of the MEPS Rules

and held that, while appointing a candidate against the post which is not

receiving grant-in-aid, the proviso to Section 5, sub-clause (1) is not

applicable. The Hon'ble Division Bench also noted the Government

Resolution dated 6th February, 2012, and that the intent of the

Government Resolution was first to absorb the surplus teachers from

the list of surplus teachers maintained by the Education Officer.

10.     In the present case, admittedly, the Petitioners seek approval for

the appointment of Petitioner No.3 to the unaided post of Instructor.

Following the decision in the case of Vishal Tanaji Dhas and Others

(supra) , the said ground does not survive.

11.     Perusal of paragraph 11 of the Petition would indicate a specific

pleading that the Petition is filed without any delay or laches in view of

the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 3




Jamadar - SL                      4 of 5
                                                      31-WP-10584-2022(C).doc


of 2020, by which the period of limitation was extended during the

COVID-19 pandemic.

12.     In light of the above, the impugned order is clearly unsustainable

and is hereby quashed and set aside.

13.     Respondent No.2 – Joint Director is directed to grant the approval

to the appointment of Petitioner No.3 within a period of three weeks

from today.

14.     The Petition is allowed in the above terms.




 [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.]                       [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]




Jamadar - SL                      5 of 5