VASANT BHAGOJI VHADAGEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-KOL:9802-DB

                                                                        26-WP-11251-2025.doc


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

                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 11251 OF 2025

               Vasant Bhagoji Vhadage                                     ...Petitioner
                         Versus
               The State Of Maharashtra And Others                        ...Respondent

                                              ——————
               Mr. Prashant Bhavake, for the Petitioner.
               Ms. Tejas Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State.
               Mr. Utkarsh Desai (through VC), for the Respondent No. 4.
               Mr. Onkar Ghatge, for the Respondent No. 5.
                                              ——————
                                                CORAM :        SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
                                                               NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
                                                DATE       :   OCTOBER 08, 2026.
               P. C. :

               1.        By the present Petition, Petitioner challenges the impugned order

               dated 26th August, 2025 passed by the Deputy Director of Education

               rejecting the individual approval granted by the Education Officer to the

               promotion of Petitioner to the post of headmaster and for release of

               salary payable to the Petitioner with all arrears.

               2.        This Court is informed that during the pendency of the present

               Petition, the Petitioner was superannuated on 31st May, 2026. Vide

               order dated 16th September, 2025, this Court had stayed the impugned

               order, and as such, the Petitioner continued on the post of headmaster




               Arya Chavan                        1 of 5
                                                       26-WP-11251-2025.doc


till his superannuation.

3.      Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner was

appointed as an assistant teacher on 13 th June, 1997 and was promoted

to the post of headmaster on 1st June, 2022. The Education Officer

granted individual approval to the promotion on 8 th August, 2022 and

upon complaint being received, cancelled the said approval on 4 th

March, 2024, after a period of two years. As against the cancellation of

the approval, the Petitioner approached the Deputy Director, which

upheld the order of cancellation on 20th June, 2024. Aggrieved thereof,

the Petitioner filed Writ Petition before this Court being Writ Petition

No. 18081 of 2024 and by order dated 16 th December, 2024, this Court

set aside the order and remitted the proceedings to the competent

authority to decide afresh. By the impugned order dated 26 th August,

2025, Deputy Director reiterated the cancellation of the approval

granted to the Petitioner.

4.      Learned counsel for the Petitioner has taken this Court in detail

through the findings of the Deputy Director of Education to contend

that the only ground on which the approval has been cancelled is by

reason of the inter se dispute in the rival factions of the management.

Drawing support from various decisions of this Court which are annexed

to the Petition, he would submit that the Deputy Director of Education

is not concerned with the inter se dispute and the only inquiry which is


Arya Chavan                      2 of 5
                                                           26-WP-11251-2025.doc


contemplated is as regards the procedure being followed as prescribed

by Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)

Rules, 1981 (for short “MEPS Rules”) .

5.      Learned AGP would support the impugned order and would

submit that as there was a dispute about the promotion being granted,

Deputy Director of Education has rightly passed the order.

6.      Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 5 would also support the

impugned order.

7.      We    have   perused   the     proceedings   and    considered     the

submissions.

8.      Rule 3 of the MEPS Rules prescribe the qualifications for

appointment of Head. It is nobody's case that the Petitioner was not the

senior most teacher in the school run by Respondent No. 4, or that he

did not meet the qualifications as prescribed by Rule 3 of the MEPS

Rules. Despite the specific order of this Court dated 16 th December,

2024, by which this Court had directed the competent authority to test

the seniority of teachers in accordance with law and that the eligible

senior most teacher would be taken into account by the competent

authority, while delivering the order, we find from the impugned order

that there is non-compliance of the order dated 16 th December, 2024.

Instead, the Deputy Director of Education has misdirected itself and has

gone into the aspect of inter se disputes between the rival factions of


Arya Chavan                          3 of 5
                                                     26-WP-11251-2025.doc


the trust with which the Deputy Director was not concerned.

9.       In the case of Murlidhar Janrao Kale And Others vs State of

Maharashtra And Others1, annexed at page 142 of the Petition, this

Court has specifically held that the Education Officer/Deputy Director

can direct management to cancel appointments made, only when

procedure laid down in Rule 3 of the MEPS Rules is not followed, and in

case of dispute amongst trustees about such appointment, the power

under Rule 3(6) of the MEPS Rules cannot be exercised. Similar view has

been taken in the case of Navnath s/o Narsing Gore vs State of

Maharashtra And Others2.

10.      The dispute in question which forms the basis for the impugned

order has no nexus with the issue which was required to be adjudicated

by the Deputy Director of Education. The reasons set out in the

impugned order reflect that the inquiry was conducted as regards the

internal dispute amongst the trustees and as to whether the change

reports have been allowed or not. There is no finding of the non-

compliance of Rule 3 of the MEPS Rules, which inquiry was

contemplated to be conducted.

11.      There is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioner was the

senior most teacher and was entitled to be appointed as headmaster

and has accordingly been functioning pursuant to the orders passed by

1    2011(3)Bom.C.R. 850
2    2021 (6) Mh.L.J.118


Arya Chavan                      4 of 5
                                                       26-WP-11251-2025.doc


this Court.

12.     In light of the above, the impugned order dated 26 th August, 2025

is clearly unsustainable and is hereby quashed and set aside.

13.     Resultantly, the individual approval granted by order of 8 th

August, 2022 is restored. Consequential benefits to be granted

expeditiously, and in any event, within a period of ten weeks.

14.     The Petition is allowed in the above terms.

15.     Applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand

disposed of.




 [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]                     [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]




Arya Chavan                       5 of 5