Bombay High Court

THE NEW EDUCATION SOCIETY KOLHAPUR AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SPORTS AND ORS

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The impugned orders rejecting the proposals for the appointment of the peon are quashed and set aside to the extent they reject the proposals.

Summary

The New Education Society and its schools sought individual approval for the appointment of a peon, but the Education Officer rejected the proposals citing deficiencies in documents and various Government Resolutions that allegedly imposed a recruitment ban and a staffing‑pattern status quo. The petitioners argued that the officer failed to give them an opportunity to cure the documentary deficiencies and that the cited resolutions were either expired or inapplicable to appointments made after 2014. The Court examined the chronology of the resolutions (2010, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2019, 2020) and relied on the Division Bench decision in Vikas Shikshan Mandal, which held that the 2005 staffing policy remained operative until the new patterns took effect in 2019/2020. It found that the officer’s reliance on the 2010‑2011 embargo and the 2013 status‑quo was misplaced, and that procedural fairness required a chance to remedy the cited deficiencies. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned orders, remitted the proposals for compliance with the deficiencies, and directed the Education Officer to decide afresh within a stipulated time.

Issues considered

Whether the Education Officer was justified in rejecting the appointment proposals on the ground of recruitment embargo and staffing‑pattern resolutions.
Whether the officer was required to give the management an opportunity to cure the documentary deficiencies before rejecting the proposals.
Which staffing‑pattern resolution governs appointments of Class‑IV (peon) staff made after 2014.
Whether the proposals should be remitted for compliance and reconsideration.

Subjects

recruitment embargo
staffing pattern
government resolution
appointment of non‑teaching staff
procedural fairness
right to be heard
education law

Judgment

2026:BHC-KOL:9203-DB

69-WP-10999-2024(C).doc

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 10999 OF 2024

1. The New Education Society Kolhapur
Having office at, Petala,
New Mahadwar Road, Kolhapur
Through its President/Secretary. ...Petitioner No.1

2. Princess Padmaraje Girls High School, New
Mahadwar Road, Kolhapur,
Through its Head Mistress. ...Petitioner No.2

3. Shri. Mahesh Maruti Tiwale,
Age: 35 Years, Occupation: Service,
R/o. 396, Salokhe Galli, Kalambe Tarfe Thane,
Taluka: Karveer, District: Kolhapur. ...Petitioner No.3

Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
School Education and Sports
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. ...Respondent No.1
2. The Commissioner of Education,
School Education Department,
Maharashtra State, Pune. ...Respondent No.2
3. The Director of Education,
(Secondary and Higher Secondary),
Maharashtra State, Pune-1. ...Respondent No.3
4. The Deputy Director of Education,
Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur,
Having office at, Hatti Mahal, Ganji
Galli, Somwar Peth, Kolhapur. ...Respondent No.4
5. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur,
Having Office at, Zilla Parishad Building, ...Respondent No.5
Nagala Park, Kolhapur.

Jamadar - SL 1 of 15
69-WP-10999-2024(C).doc

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11000 OF 2024

1. The New Education Society Kolhapur
Having office at, Petala,
New Mahadwar Road, Kolhapur
Through its President/Secretary. ...Petitioner No.1

2. Nandani High School, Nandani,
Taluka : Shirol, District : Kolhapur
Through its Head Master ...Petitioner No.2

3. Shri. Tushar Kallapa Damate,
Age: 31 Years, Occupation: Service,
R/o. Nandani, Taluka : Shirol,
District : Kolhapur ...Petitioner No.3

Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
School Education and Sports
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai – 400 032. ...Respondent No.1
2. The Commissioner of Education,
School Education Department,
Maharashtra State, Pune. ...Respondent No.2
3. The Director of Education,
(Secondary and Higher Secondary),
Maharashtra State, Pune-1. ...Respondent No.3
4. The Deputy Director of Education,
Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur,
Having office at, Hatti Mahal, Ganji
Galli, Somwar Peth, Kolhapur. ...Respondent No.4
5. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur,
Having Office at, Zilla Parishad Building, ...Respondent No.5
Nagala Park, Kolhapur.

Jamadar - SL 2 of 15
69-WP-10999-2024(C).doc

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13040 OF 2024

1. The New Education Society Kolhapur
Having office at, Petala,
New Mahadwar Road, Kolhapur
Through its President/Secretary. ...Petitioner No.1

2. New High School, Kolhapur
Taluka : Karvir, District : Kolhapur
Through its Head Master. ...Petitioner No.2

3. Shri. Atul Manohar Nigavekar,
Age: 35 Years, Occupation: Service,
R/o.’A’ Ward, Dhotri Galli, Gangavesh,
Kolhapur ...Petitioner No.3

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
School Education and Sports
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. ...Respondent No.1
2. The Commissioner of Education,
School Education Department,
Maharashtra State, Pune. ...Respondent No.2
3. The Director of Education,
(Secondary and Higher Secondary),
Maharashtra State, Pune-1. ...Respondent No.3
4. The Deputy Director of Education,
Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur,
Having office at, Hatti Mahal, Ganji
Galli, Somwar Peth, Kolhapur. ...Respondent No.4
5. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur,
Having Office at, Zilla Parishad Building, ...Respondent No.5
Nagala Park, Kolhapur.

Jamadar - SL 3 of 15
69-WP-10999-2024(C).doc

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13508 OF 2024

1. The New Education Society Kolhapur
Having office at, Petala,
New Mahadwar Road, Kolhapur
Through its President/Secretary. ...Petitioner No.1

2. Sou. Saraswatibai M. Lohia High School and
Junior College, Kolhapur, 1014, ‘A’ Ward,
Petala, Krari Corner, Kolhapur, ...Petitioner No.2
Through its Head Master.
3. Shri. Arjun Krishnat Mahadik,
Age : 33 Years, Occupation : Service,
R/o. A/P. Kasaba Thane, Tal. Panhala,
District : Kolhapur ...Petitioner No.3

Jamadar - SL 4 of 15
69-WP-10999-2024(C).doc

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15073 OF 2024

1. The New Education Society Kolhapur
Having office at, Petala,
New Mahadwar Road, Kolhapur
Through its President/Secretary. ...Petitioner No.1

2. Laxminarayan Malu High School,
Jaysingpur, Taluka : Shirol, District : Kolhapur
Through its Head Master. ...Petitioner No.2

3. Sou. Megha Sandeep More,
(Nee Smt. Megha Rajendra Patil)
Age : 38 Years, Occupation : Service,
R/o. A/P. Jaysingpur, Shahunagar, Jaysingpur, ...Petitioner No.3
Tal. Shirol, District : Kolhapur
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
School Education and Sports
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. ...Respondent No.1
2. The Commissioner of Education,
School Education Department,
Maharashtra State, Pune. ...Respondent No.2
3. The Director of Education,
(Secondary and Higher Secondary),
Maharashtra State, Pune-1. ...Respondent No.3
4. The Deputy Director of Education,
Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur,
Having office at, Hatti Mahal, Ganji
Galli, Somwar Peth, Kolhapur. ...Respondent No.4
5. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur,
Having Office at, Zilla Parishad Building, ...Respondent No.5
Nagala Park, Kolhapur.

Jamadar - SL 5 of 15
69-WP-10999-2024(C).doc

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15078 OF 2024

1. The New Education Society Kolhapur
Having office at, Petala,
New Mahadwar Road, Kolhapur
Through its President/Secretary. ...Petitioner No.1

2. Laxminarayan Malu High School,
Jaysingpur, Taluka : Shirol, District : Kolhapur
Through its Head Master. ...Petitioner No.2

3. Shri. Chandrakant Annaso Patil,
Age : 40 Years, Occupation : Service,
R/o. A/P. Udgaon, Taluka : Shirol,
District : Kolhapur ...Petitioner No.3

Jamadar - SL 6 of 15
69-WP-10999-2024(C).doc

Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.

Reserved on : September 22, 2026.
Pronounced On : September 24, 2026.

ORDER : (Per : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.)

1. This group of Petitions raise identical issues. Common

submissions were advanced, and hence, these Petitions are being

disposed of by this common order.

2. Writ Petition No.10999 of 2024 is filed by the Petitioners

challenging the order dated 6th April, 2023 passed by Respondent No.5 -

Education Officer, rejecting the proposal submitted by Petitioner Nos.1

and 2 seeking individual approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.3

in the post of Peon at Petitioner No.2 Secondary School.

3. Writ Petition No.15073 of 2024 seeks an identical relief of

quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 12 th May, 2023, by

which the proposal submitted by Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 seeking

individual approval to the appointment of the Petitioner No.3 in the

post of Peon came to be rejected.

4. Writ Petition No.11000 of 2024 impugns the identical order of

rejection dated 12th May, 2023, seeking approval to the appointment of

Petitioner No.3 in the post of Peon at Petitioner No.2 Secondary School.

Jamadar - SL 7 of 15
69-WP-10999-2024(C).doc

5. Writ Petition No.13508 of 2024 impugns the order of rejection

dated 3rd April, 2023 of the proposal submitted for appointment of

Petitioner No.3 to the post of Peon at Petitioner No.2 - Secondary

School.

6. Writ Petition No.13040 of 2024 impugns the order of rejection

passed by the Education Officer on 25th May, 2023, seeking individual

approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.3 to the post of Peon at

Petitioner No.2 - Secondary School.

7. Writ Petition No.15078 of 2024 impugns the order of rejection

dated 12th May, 2023, rejecting the proposal submitted for appointment

of Petitioner No.3 to the post of Peon at Petitioner No.2 - Secondary

School.

8. The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in all these Petitions, is New Education

Society, Kolhapur, and the schools in which the appointments are made

are the schools run by the New Education Society.

9. For factual clarity, the facts of Writ Petition No.10999 of 2024 are

referred. In Petitioner No.2 - School, vacancy was created due to

retirement of Peon and before proceeding to fill up the vacancy, the

representative of Petitioner No.1 approached the office of Respondent

No.5 to ascertain whether any suitable surplus Peon was available. As

no suitable surplus Peon was available, the Petitioner No.1 published

advertisements in two daily newspapers, in response to which Petitioner

Jamadar - SL 8 of 15
69-WP-10999-2024(C).doc

No.3 applied, and appointment order was issued by Petitioner No.1.

Subsequently, the proposal was attempted to be submitted for

approval; however, the same was not accepted by orally giving the

reason of ban on recruitment, and ultimately, on 8 th March, 2023, the

proposal came to be submitted and was rejected, leading to the present

Petition.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners has taken this

Court through the reasons given in the impugned order dated 6 th April,

2023, rejecting the Petitioner No.3's proposal seeking approval. He

submits that insofar as the deficiencies noted at Serial Nos.1 to 9 of the

impugned order is concerned, the management may be given an

opportunity to comply with these deficiencies. He submits that, insofar

as the reason cited at Serial No.10 is concerned, the Government

Resolution dated 10th June, 2010, placing an embargo on recruitment

was in operation for a period of one year, which was thereafter

extended for a further period of one year by the Government

Resolution dated 16th July, 2011. He submits that the Petitioner's

appointment is of the year 2017. He would further submit that, insofar

as the Government Resolution dated 23 rd October, 2013, which directed

status quo till the staffing pattern is approved, was the subject matter

of the decision in the case of Vikas Shikshan Mandal and Others v. The

Jamadar - SL 9 of 15
69-WP-10999-2024(C).doc

State of Maharashtra and Others 1. Drawing attention of this Court to

the said judgment, he would submit that this Court has held that the

last staffing policy introduced vide Government Resolution dated 25 th

November, 2005 was held to be holding the field, and the new staffing

pattern for Class-IV employees was operational only with effect from

11th December, 2020. He submits that, in view of the same, the staffing

pattern which would be applicable would be the staffing pattern of

2005. He would further submit that the deficiency cited at Serial No. 11

is also covered by the decision of Vikas Shikshan Mandal, (supra). He

submits that insofar as deficiency at Serial No.12 is concerned, the same

is based on the delay in submitting the proposal, which is also cited as a

deficiency at Serial No.2, and appropriate explanation is called for,

which will be duly submitted.

11. Learned AGP would support the impugned order and would

submit that, as there are number of deficiencies which are cited in the

impugned order, the approval could not have been granted by the

Education Officer and the proposal has been rightly rejected.

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

13. By the impugned order dated 6th April, 2023, the Education

Officer has listed a number of deficiencies and, without giving an

opportunity to the management to cure the deficiencies, have rejected

1 Writ Petition No.6812 of 2024 dated 2nd February, 2026.

Jamadar - SL 10 of 15
69-WP-10999-2024(C).doc

the proposal. Pertinently, the deficiencies which are cited at Serial Nos.

1, 2 and 3 of the impugned order specifically calls upon the

management to submit an explanation. Where an explanation has been

called from the management, it is expected that appropriate

communication would be issued to the management calling upon it to

comply with the deficiencies. Instead, the Education Officer, without

giving an opportunity to the management to submit the explanation,

has rejected the proposal.

14. The deficiencies which are noted at Serial Nos. 1 to 9 are the

deficiencies in the documents required by the Education Officer and

could have been called from the management before rejecting the

proposal, which has not been done in the present case. There is,

therefore, substance in the submission of learned Counsel appearing for

the Petitioners that an opportunity be granted to the management to

comply with the deficiencies stated in Serial Nos. 1 to 9.

15. Coming to the deficiencies which are cited at Serial Nos. 10 and

11, which is one of the common reason in all these Petitions for

rejecting the proposals, the Education Officer has considered the

embargo imposed on recruitment by Government Resolution dated 10 th

June, 2010. The Government Resolution is annexed at page 105 of the

Petition. Perusal of the Government Resolution would indicate that, in

respect of Class-III and Class-IV employees, with effect from 5 th June,

Jamadar - SL 11 of 15
69-WP-10999-2024(C).doc

2010, there was a ban on recruitment which was for a period of one

year. Subsequently, by Government Resolution dated 16 th July, 2011,

the ban which was imposed with effect from 5 th June, 2010, was

extended for a period of one year. The Petitioner's appointment is

subsequent to the Government Resolutions of 2010 and 2011, and the

same could not have formed the basis for rejection of the proposal for

approval.

16. The Education Officer has further placed reliance on the

Government Resolution dated 23rd October, 2013, by which there was a

status quo which was granted in respect of non-teaching employees till

the staffing pattern has been approved.

17. The Education Officer has also relied upon the Government

Resolution dated 28th January, 2019, by which the revised staffing

pattern was applied to the non-teaching staff, to hold that the

Government Resolution gives no reason in respect of Class-IV

employees. The Education Officer has further considered that by

Government Resolution dated 11th December, 2020, the staffing

pattern of Class-IV employees has been finalized, and accordingly, the

honorarium is required to be paid to Class-IV employees.

18. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vikas Shikshan

Mandal, (supra), considered the changes in the staffing pattern in the

Jamadar - SL 12 of 15
69-WP-10999-2024(C).doc

private school and the effect of the Government Resolutions dated 23 rd

October, 2013, 12th February, 2015, 28th January, 2019, and 12th

December, 2020, and the fate of the appointments made during the

transition of the policies on staffing pattern. The Hon'ble Division Bench

considered the Government Resolutions as regards the changes in the

staffing pattern and held in Paragraphs 12.14 and 12.15 as Under :

“12.14 We are of considered view to hold that until the new staffing
patters were introduced in 2019 and 2020, the last staffing policy
introduced vide Government Resolution dated 25.11.2005 was holding
field. Thus, the conundrum created by the various Government
Resolutions from 2013 to 2019 & 2020 (IV category) over the staffing
pattern and the fate of the appointments made in the mean period,
stands solved. Staffing pattern sought to be introduced by Government
Resolution of 2013 lost its effect ab initio in view of Government
Resolution of 2015. Meaning thereby, the earlier staffing pattern of
2005 stood superseded by the staffing pattern of 2019 (for all
categories excluding Class IV) and by the staffing pattern of 2020 (for
Class IV category), both operational prospectively from their respective
dates of issuance.

12.15. The new staffing pattern for Class IV employees is operational
only w.e.f. 11.12.2020. It is trite law that a Government Resolution, a
statute, an amendment is not retrospectively applicable unless
expressly provided. Hence we reject the contention of the learned
Assistant Government Pleader based on the objection recorded by the
Education Officer that Government Resolution of 2013 i.e. dated
23.10.2013 disqualifies the proposal for approval to the appointment of
Petitioner No.3 which is made on 31.08.2014.”

19. The decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court is

sufficient answer to the reasons stated by the Education Officer, while

rejecting the proposal, at Serial Nos.10 and 11 of the impugned order.

20. Insofar as the reason cited at Serial No. 12 is concerned, the same

seeks an explanation for the delay in submission of the proposal, which

is for the Management to explain.

Jamadar - SL 13 of 15
69-WP-10999-2024(C).doc

21. As there was no opportunity which was given to the Management

to comply with the deficiencies mentioned at Serial Nos. 1 to 9, and the

reasons cited at Serial Nos. 10 and 11 are covered by the decision in the

case of Vikas Shikshan Mandal, (supra), and no longer survives in view

of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, we are of the

considered opinion that the impugned orders in these group of

Petitions rejecting the proposal submitted for approval of Petitioner

No.3's appointment as Peon in Petitioner No. 2-School are liable to be

quashed and set aside to the extent that it reject the proposal for

approval.

22. The proposals are remitted to the file of the Education Officer.

The Management is directed to comply with the deficiencies cited in the

proposal.

23. The Education Officer to take into consideration the observations

made in the present order and the decision of Vikas Shikshan Mandal,

(supra), as the same answers the rejection on the ground of the

Government Resolutions stated in Serial Nos.10 and 11 of the impugned

order.

24. The Management to comply with the deficiencies within a period

of two weeks. After receiving compliance with the deficiencies, the

Education Officer to consider the proposal afresh and, particularly, in

the light of the observations made in the present order, and decide the

Jamadar - SL 14 of 15
69-WP-10999-2024(C).doc

proposals expeditiously and, in any event, within a period of four weeks

thereafter.

25. In the event the proposals are approved, the Respondent No.4,

Deputy Director of Education, to include the name of the Petitioners in

the Shalarth Pranali and issue the Shalarth ID within a period of three

weeks thereafter.

26. As there is a delay in submission of the proposal, the burden of

arrears of grant-in-aid salary cannot be imposed upon the State

Government. In the event approval is granted, the arrears of grant-in-

aid salary to be released from the date of submission of the proposal

within a period of three weeks thereafter.

27. The Petitions are allowed in the above terms.

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

Jamadar - SL 15 of 15

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…