MRS. UJWALA VASANT MANE (MRS. UJWALA S. PATIL)versusTHE CHAIRMAN / SECRETARY, HARIHAR SHIKSHAN SANSTHA AND ORS

 VINA                                                                        15.as.wp.10809.2012 @1.doc
 ARVIND
 KHADPE
Digitally signed by
VINA ARVIND
KHADPE
                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Date: 2026.08.20
18:33:45 +0530                              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                            WRIT PETITION NO. 10809 OF 2012

                      Mrs. Ujwala Vasant Mane                                     ...Petitioner
                                 Versus
                      The Chairman / Secretary Harihar Shikshan                   ...Respondents
                      Sanstha, and ors.

                                                        ****
                      Mr.Sharad S. Suryavanshi i/b. Pol Legal Juris for the Petitioner.
                      Ms. Ashwini A. Purav, AGP for the Respondent No.3– State.
                      None for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
                                                        ****

                                                    CORAM :         M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                                      DATE :        18th AUGUST, 2026
                      P.C. :
                      1.            Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. Perused the record.
                      2.            The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.08.2012
                      passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai (‘the Tribunal’
                      for short) in Appeal No.38 of 2010, partly allowing the appeal, setting
                      aside the order of termination, however, refusing to reinstate the
                      Petitioner and directing the Management to pay compensation of six
                      months’ salary along with costs. The Appeal was filed challenging
                      termination order dated 03.04.2010.


                      3.            The Petitioner had qualification of B.A. B.P.Ed at the relevant
                      time in the year 2005 and claims to have improved her educational
                      qualification to B.A. Degree with Marathi subject in the academic year
                      2010. The Petitioner belongs to open category. The appointment of
                      Petitioner was not approved by the Education Department. The School
                      was un-aided till 2010. These are undisputed facts.
                      4.            The case of the Petitioner, in short is as under:-


                                                                1
                      Vina Khadpe
                                                    15.as.wp.10809.2012 @1.doc



  4.1. That she was appointed in Respondent No.2 High School w.e.f.
          01.12.2005 to teach physical education and Marathi subject in
          the secondary school and she continuously worked for three
          academic years.
  4.2. That she was a trained graduate teacher who was teaching
          marathi subject to 5th and 7th standard, computer education to 8th
          standard along with physical education and drawing to 9 th and 6th
          standard, respectively.
  4.3. That since she improved her education qualification by passing
          B.A. with marathi, she ought to have been permitted to continue
          teaching the subjects of marathi and history.
  4.4. That she was prohibited from signing on the school muster and
          was not permitted to work in the academic year 2009 – 2010
          which amounts to termination, leading to filing of Appeal.
5.            The   Respondent      Management    filed    written        statement
contending inter alia in the year 2005, there was a vacancy for S.S.C.
D.Ed. candidate and accordingly, advertisement was given in the local
newspaper. However, despite such efforts, the Management could not
get any duly qualified candidate and therefore the Petitioner was
appointed purely on temporary basis. According to the Management,
the Petitioner never held the requisite qualification and the subject of
Petitioner’s qualification was sociology and political science which are
not the subject of High School. According to the Management, the
Petitioner was appointed on temporary basis with clear understanding
that as soon as any D.Ed. Candidate becomes available, her temporary
job would come to an end and the Petitioner was well aware of this fact.
According to the Management, the termination letter was issued on
28.04.2009; however, the Petitioner refused to accept the same and
made grievance with the Education Authorities and a complaint was

                                        2
Vina Khadpe
                                                  15.as.wp.10809.2012 @1.doc



filed which resulted into the Education Inspector passing order on
05.05.2010 against the Petitioner. According to the Management, the
Education Inspector by name Mr. Borse, on the last day of his service,
reversed the earlier order and called upon the Respondent Management
to allow the Petitioner to resume duties. However, since the direction
was ex-facie against Rules, by communication dated 06.07.2010, the
Management sent detail reply to the Education Inspector expressing
legal impediment and underlining again that the Petitioner does not
possess the required qualification. The Management also contended that
the whole case of the Petitioner is based without any actual
appointment order.
6.            The Respondent – Education Inspector did not file written
statement in the appeal, however, filed a say to the delay condonation
Application, taking a stand that the appointment of the Petitioner is not
approved.
7.            In these circumstances, the Tribunal on appreciation of the
evidence found that the Petitioner cannot be reinstated and the
Management was directed to pay compensation of six months’ salary
and costs.
8.            The Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition which was
admitted on 29.01.2016 and the Respondent – Education Inspector was
directed to verify the position as regards the staffing pattern and
vacancies in the Respondent – School and file the same on record.
9.            The Superintendent, Office of the Education Inspector, West
Zone, Mumbai, in compliance of the said order, filed an Affidavit-in-
Reply dated 29.02.2016 contending interalia that the Respondent
School has started receiving grant-in-aid from the academic year 2010-
2011 for standards 8th to 10th. After considering the staffing pattern, it
is stated that there was no trained graduate teacher post vacant at the

                                      3
Vina Khadpe
                                                    15.as.wp.10809.2012 @1.doc



relevant time. It is further stated that the Petitioner was appointed with
her education qualification B.A. B.P.Ed., and she has passed B.A. in
Sociology and Political Science, which are not the subject as per
Secondary School Code, Rule 57.1 for secondary school. It is further
stated that since the Petitioner has acquired B.A. Degree and the
subjects are not of school level, the approval was not granted to the
Petitioner’s appointment.
10.             Nobody has appeared for the Respondent-Management.
However, the Affidavit-in-Reply is filed on 02.12.2015. The Head Master
of the Respondent – School has stated therein that the Petitioner was
possessing B.A. B.P.Ed            qualification which was not requisite
qualification and since the suitable candidate was not available as per
the advertised post, the Petitioner was allowed to teach the subjects
temporarily. It is stated that for the purpose of approval it was necessary
for the Petitioner to have appropriate qualification. It is reiterated that
the subject in which the Petitioner has completed B.A. Degree are not
the subjects taught in the school.
11.             Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that since the
Petitioner has completed B.A. with Marathi, she ought to have been
continued in the service. He also contended that the appointment order
is available with the Respondent Management but they have not
produced it. He relied upon a clarification issued by the Directorate of
Education to the Education Officer about granting an approval to the
pay scale of B.Com. D.Ed. eligible teachers. In support of his
submissions, he relied on the following Judgments :
   I.         Laxman s/o Maroti Turukmane Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.
              (Writ Petition No.771 of 1991) Judgment dated 12.01.2010,
              Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad.
   II         Namdeo Sukdeo Saptale Vs. The Chairman, Kai Ramchandra Patil

                                         4
Vina Khadpe
                                                         15.as.wp.10809.2012 @1.doc



              Shikshan Sanstha & ors. (Writ Petition No.10070 of 2011)
              Judgment dated 05.04.2016, Bombay High Court.
   III Namrata Ramchandra Zagade Vs. Gujrati Shikshan Pracharak
              Mandal, Pune & ors. (2026 SCC OnLine Bom 657).


12.             Learned AGP has supported the impugned order by relying
upon the Affidavits-in-Reply.
13.             I have considered the rival submissions and perused the
record.
14.             At the outset, it is necessary to note that the Petitioner has not
produced any appointment order issued in writing. The contention that
the appointment order exists and is available with the Management is
too omnibus and self suiting argument. It can not be entertained. The
appointment orders are issued addressed to the persons appointed and
therefore the Petitioner was expected to produce and prove the
appointment order. The absence of appointment order in writing lends
credence to the case of the Respondent Management that since the
candidate with necessary qualification was not available at the relevant
time, pursuant to the advertisement, the Petitioner was permitted to
work on temporary basis.
15.             It is not disputed that the Petitioner’s original qualification was
B.A. B.P.Ed and subsequently B.A. with marathi. It is also not in dispute
that the Petitioner has completed B.A. with Sociology and Political
Science, which subjects are not available for teaching in secondary
school. The copy of the Petitioner’s Decree showing completion of B.A.
(three years integrated course) clearly shows subjects as Sociology and
Political Science.
16.             The Tribunal though came to the conclusion that one month’s
notice was necessary to be given and therefore held that technically the

                                            5
Vina Khadpe
                                                15.as.wp.10809.2012 @1.doc



termination order is illegal, the Tribunal has come to a positive finding
that the appointment was on temporary basis. In the teeth of such
finding, the Tribunal then proceeded to consider whether a case of
reinstatement is made out.
17.           On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal held that the
Petitioner was not qualified at the time of appointment to teach Marathi
and History subjects. The Tribunal has also found that in the year 2005,
the post of trained graduate teacher for teaching Marathi and History
was not vacant. It is also found that though the vacancy to teach maths
and science was available, the Petitioner was not qualified to be
appointed to teach maths and science as the same were not Petitioner’s
subjects. Faced with such situation and finding that the Petitioner’s
appointment was on temporary basis, in absence of appointment order,
the Tribunal has held that a case for reinstatement was not made out.
No fault can be found with this conclusion.
18.           Pursuant to this Court’s order, the concerned Education
Authority has filed Affidavit-in-Reply taking a clear stand that the
subjects with which the Petitioner has improved her qualification in B.A.
(Sociology and Political Science) are not the subjects taught in the
secondary school and therefore, she cannot be permitted under the
relevant provisions of law.
19.           In Laxman s/o Maroti Turukmane (supra), the teacher was
appointed against clear and permanent vacancy             and       in case of
Namdeo Sukdeo Saptale (supra) also the concerned teacher was
appointed on probation for a period of two years against clear
permanent vacancy. In Namrata Ramchandra Zagade (supra), the
school had vacancy for the teacher for subjects of science and
mathematics and under appointment order, the party therein                   was
appointed as the Assistant Teacher as he was duly qualified holding the

                                     6
Vina Khadpe
                                                    15.as.wp.10809.2012 @1.doc



Degree of Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Education with
specialization in Science and mathematics. In such factual backdrops,
the Court in the said Judgments, have considered the case of the
appointment and reinstatement.
          The present case being completely distinguishable on the facts in
as much as the Petitioner neither had an appointment order nor was
qualified to be appointed for teaching subjects of Marathi and History,
the said judgments will not advance the case of the Petitioner.
20.           In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for reasons
indicated above, the view taken by the Tribunal is the most probable
view and cannot be faulted. No perversity is found. There is no reason
to interfere.
21.           Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No
order as to costs.


                                            (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




                                        7
Vina Khadpe