SUMITRA MALLIKARJUN PUJARI NEE SUMITRA RAJENDRA BIRAJDARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETRY SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SPORTS AND ORS

                                                                                     78-WP-11680-2024.doc



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

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 11680 OF 2024

Sumitra Mallikarjun Pujari nee                                            ...Petitioner
Sumitra Rajendra Birajdar
          Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others                                       ...Respondents

                                           ——————
Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioner.
Mr. V. G. Badgujar, AGP, for the Respondent-State.
                                           ——————
                                              Coram :         Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                                              Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                              Date        : October 08, 2026.
P. C. :

1.        By the present petition, the challenge is to the order of 25 th July

2023 passed by the Education Oicer rejecting the proposal sent

seeking approval to the appointment of the Petitioner to the post of

Peon.

2.        The only ground on which the proposal has been rejected is by

reason of status quo imposed by the Government Resolution of 12 th

February 2015 and the staing pattern, which was introduced by the

Government Resolution of 28th January 2019.

3.        In the case of Shital Kumar Patil v. State of Maharashtra,1 the

1    Writ Petition No.4273 of 2019 & Connected writ petitions dtd. 16th July 2021.


Gaikwad RD                                     1 of 4
                                                                  78-WP-11680-2024.doc



Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court considered the said issue and has

held that Section 5(1) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools

(Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short, ‘MEPS Act’) is

excluded and is not applicable to minority institutions. It further held

that minority institutions are entitled to make appointments of teachers

of their choice and such appointments cannot be vetoed until the time

surplus teachers are accommodated/absorbed. It has further considered

the Government Resolution of 12th February 2015 and held that the

same did not apply, where the Petitioner is appointed prior to the said

date.

4.       In the present case, the Petitioner has been appointed in the year

2009. The Petitioner has been appointed in Respondent No. 7-Minority

Educational Institution and, therefore, the Government Resolution

would not apply, which has not been considered by the impugned order.

5.       In the case of Vikas Shikshan Mandal v. The State of

Maharashtra & Ors.2, it has been held in paragraph 12.14 as under:

         “12.14           We are of considered view to hold that until the
         new staing patters were introduced in 2019 and 2020, the
         last staing policy introduced vide Government Resolution
         dated 25.11.2005 was holding ield. Thus, the conundrum
         created by the various Government Resolutions from 2013 to
         2019 & 2020 (IV category) over the staing pattern and the

2    Writ Petition No.6812 of 2024 dtd. 2nd February 2026.


Gaikwad RD                                     2 of 4
                                                              78-WP-11680-2024.doc



        fate of the appointments made in the mean period, stands
        solved. Staing pattern sought to be introduced by
        Government Resolution of 2013 lost its efect ab initio in view
        of Government Resolution of 2015. Meaning thereby, the
        earlier staing pattern of 2005 stood superseded by the
        staing pattern of 2019 (for all categories excluding Class IV)
        and by the staing pattern of 2020 (for Class IV category),
        both operational prospectively from their respective dates of
        issuance.”

6.      It is evident that it is the staing pattern of 2005, which will

govern the appointment of the Petitioner. Perusal of the impugned

order would indicate that the Education Oicer has not ascertained as

to whether the appointment of the Petitioner is as per procedure and

on a sanctioned post and has rejected the same only on the basis of the

Government Resolutions.

7.      In view of the above, the impugned order dated 25 th July 2023 is

hereby quashed and set aside.

8.      The proposal is remitted to the ile of the Education Oicer to be

decided afresh in light of the observations in the present order

expeditiously and in any event, within a period of six weeks from today.

9.      In the event the approval is granted, Respondent No.4-Deputy

Director of Education to allot Shalarth ID to the Petitioner and include

the name of the Petitioner in the Shalarth Pranali within a period of two



Gaikwad RD                        3 of 4
                                                                                 78-WP-11680-2024.doc



                        weeks thereafter on the grant of approval and release the grant-in-aid

                        salary as permissible in accordance with law within a period of three

                        weeks thereafter.




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


           Digitally
           signed by
           RAJU
RAJU       DATTATRAYA
DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD    Date:
           2026.10.09
           13:18:03
           +0530




                        Gaikwad RD                     4 of 4