GAJANAN BHAUSAHEB GOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

                                 *1*                  133-wp-11471-2025


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

               133 WRIT PETITION NO. 11471 OF 2025

                 GAJANAN BHAUSAHEB GORE
                            VERSUS
  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
                   SECRETARY AND OTHERS
                                ...
Mr. T. M. Venjane, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for Respondents/State
                                ...

                      CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI &
                              ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                      DATE : 6th AUGUST 2026

P. C. :-

1.         By this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the

communication dated 09.07.2025 issued by respondent.

No.4 – Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalna,

by which the proposal seeking approval to the appointment

of the petitioner has been turned down, by relying on the

communication of the Respondent No.2 - the Director of

Education, Pune dated 28.05.2025, which is based on the

Government Resolution dated 04.04.2025 issued by the

School Education and Sports Department.

2.         The petitioner has been appointed on the post of

Narwade
                               *2*                 133-wp-11471-2025


Assistant Teacher vide appointment order dated 02.09.2024

in Chakradharswami Secondary and Higher Secondary

School, Hiswan (Kh.). The said school accordingly on

29.04.2025 submitted a proposal seeking approval to his

appointment. The said proposal has been turned down by

the respondent No.4 by impugned order and, therefore,

the petitioner is before this Court.

3.        Learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the

order dated 25.11.2025 passed by this Court in Writ

Petition No.12798/2025 in the case of Avinash Kamdev

Sherkhane Vs. The State of Maharashtra through its

Principal Secretary and others, submits that this Court in

case of similarly circumstanced petitioners has set aside the

communication by directing the concerned Education

Officer to get a fresh proposal from the Education

Institution within a period of one month by scrutinizing the

same and decide it accordingly within a period of two

months thereafter.

4.        The relevant observations of this Court in paragraph


Narwade
                                *3*                    133-wp-11471-2025


Nos.3 and 5 of said order are as follows :

          “3. It appears that the respondents are relying on
          the communication dated 28.05.2025 which is
          stated to be based on Government Resolution
          dated 04.04.2025. As per the petitioner, he came
          to be appointed in view of advertisement that was
          given on 25.02.2024 and the appointment order
          was on the clear sanctioned post of Lab Assistant.
          He was given an appointment order on 10.03.2024
          and he resume his duty on 11.03.2024. In order to
          show that there was a clear vacancy, the petitioner
          has supplied the copy of Sanch Manyata of the
          year 2018-2019 as well as 2023-2024. We are not
          aware as to whether along with the proposal that
          was sent by the Educational Institution these
          Sanch Manyata was given or not in respect of the
          year 2023-2024. Impugned communication dated
          26.06.2025 states that the document that was
          annexed was of Sanch Manyata 2018-2019. It is
          also not clear as to whether along with the
          proposal, the document regarding permission for
          filling up the post of Lab Assistant was taken prior
          to 25.02.2024 or not by the Educational
          Institution. The Educational Institution is not party
          before this Court. Now the question would be for
          appointment that was made prior to Government
          Resolution dated 04.04.2025 whether the said
          Government Resolution can be made applicable. In
          other words, whether Government Resolution
          dated 04.04.2025 can be made applicable
          retrospectively is a question. If all the documents
          necessary for seeking approval were filed then it
          ought to have been then considered.
          5.     Certainly, we are of the opinion that a
          Government Resolution cannot be acted
          retrospectively unless there is specific stipulation
          for the same and if the appointment is as per the
          procedure and against a clear vacancy then it

Narwade
                                 *4*                   133-wp-11471-2025


           should be considered. We therefore, set aside the
           order dated 26.06.2025 and direct the respondent
           No. 4 to get a fresh proposal from the Educational
           Institution within a period of one month,
           scrutinize it and decide within further two
           months.”

5.        In the light of the aforesaid observations of this Court,

we    set      aside   the   impugned      communication      dated

09.07.2025 and direct Respondent No.4 – Education Officer

to get a fresh proposal from concerned Education

Institutions within a period of four (4) weeks and scrutinize

the same and decide them accordingly within a period of

two (2) weeks thereafter. The writ petition is accordingly

disposed of.




(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)               (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)




Narwade