Bombay High Court

JASWANTSING KARANSINH BAYAS AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: KISHORE C SANT SUSHIL M GHODESWAR

Holding

Because the appointments were not effected following the required legal procedure, the petitioners have no entitlement to salary or regularisation, and the writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioners, former teachers at a government school, claimed arrears of salary and regularisation of their appointments, alleging they had worked from 2009 to 2018 without payment. They sought the court’s direction to compel the respondents to approve their appointments and pay dues. The court examined the appointment process and found that no advertisement, no prior permission, and no approved staffing pattern existed, rendering the appointments void for lack of due process. The Headmaster intervened, stating he never signed the appointment orders, and the respondents’ counsel affirmed the procedural defects. Consequently, the court held that the petitioners had no legal right to salary or regularisation and dismissed the writ petition. The intervenor’s civil application was allowed and disposed of, with a direction to amend the writ petition accordingly.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioners are entitled to arrears of salary and regularisation of their teaching appointments despite the appointments not being made in accordance with statutory procedures.

Subjects

arrears of salary
appointment procedure
due process of law
teachers
public service employment
writ petition
dismissal

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:15315-DB


                                                                           11333.18wp
                                                 (1)

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             76 WRIT PETITION NO. 11333 OF 2018

                         JASWANTSING KARANSINH BAYAS AND ORS
                                         VERSUS
                           THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

                                          WITH
                            CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10181 OF 2022
                                      IN WP/11333/2018

                             PRABHAKAR SHARNAPPA BEDGE
                                       VERSUS
                        JASWANTSING KARNSINH BAYAS AND OTHERS
                                                …..
                Mr N. R. Thorat, Advocate for Petitioners
                Mr K. B. Jadhavar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State
                Mr V. D. Gunale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 & 5
                Mr Arpit S. Tarale, Advocate h/f Mr C. K. Shinde, Advocate for
                Applicant (Intervenor)
                                                 …..

                                        CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT
                                                      AND
                                                SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ.

                                          DATE : 08th APRIL 2026

                PER COURT :-


                1.          Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner, learned AGP

                and learned Advocate for respective respondents.


                2.          The petitioner has prayed for direction to respondents to

                consider the applications of the petitioner dated 23/01/2017 and
                                                              11333.18wp
                                    (2)

30/05/2017. The petitioners’ claim is for arrears of salary and approval

to the post of teachers with respondent No.4/School. It is contended in

the petition that the petitioners have joined in the respondent

No.4/School on getting appointment orders in 2009 and worked till

2018, however, no salary has been paid to them. It is submitted that

the proposal was submitted for approval to their appointments,

however, said was refused by the Deputy Director of Education, Latur

Division, Latur. It is stated in the refusal order that there are no

documents of approved staffing pattern, availability of workload to

appoint the petitioners and no roaster is approved by the authorities.

Thus, it is the case of the petitioners that since they have worked, they

have not been paid salary and not granted approval.


3.           Upon hearing the respective parties, it is seen that the

appointments of the petitioners were not made by due process of law.

There was no permission obtained prior for issuance of advertisement

calling for applications. Thus, the appointments of the petitioners are

not by following due procedure of law, and therefore, no question of

getting any right to the petitioners arises.


4.           The Headmaster of the respondent No.4/School has filed

intervention application. It is case of the said Headmaster that he has
                                                                11333.18wp
                                   (3)

never signed the appointment orders. Even in the affidavit-in-reply

filed by the learned AGP, it is made clear that the petitioners were

appointed without following due procedure of law. The proposal was

rightly refused by the Deputy Director of Education on the ground that

the appointments were not as per the provisions of law.


5.           Considering the above, this Court is of the opinion that no

case is made out by the petitioners to call for interference of this Court.

This petition, therefore, stands dismissed.



6.           Civil application No.10181/2022 for intervention is also

allowed and stands disposed of. Petitioner to carry out necessary

amendment by showing the name of the applicant in this civil

application as party respondent in writ petition.




[SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]                     [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]

sjk

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…