SMT SWAMINI SANJAY BHOSALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. THE SEC. SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SPORTS DEPT AND ORS

                                                          904 wp-11846-2024(c).doc


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

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 11846 OF 2024

Swamini Sanjay Bhosale.                                      ...Petitioner.
        Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others.                         ...Respondents.
                            ——————
Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioner.
Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent-State.
                                   ——————
                                     Coram :     Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                                 Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                     Date      : September 29, 2026.
P. C. :

1.         By this Petition, challenge is to the order dated 31 st August, 2019,

passed by Respondent No. 5-Education Officer. By the impugned order,

the Education Officer granted approval for the Petitioner’s transfer

from unaided post to aided post on a consolidated pay scale for the

post of Shikshan Sevak, even though Petitioner had completed

probation period and had acquired deemed permanency.


2.         Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 20 th June, 2013, the

Petitioner was appointed on unaided post of Shikshan Sevak, and her

appointment was approved by the Education Officer on 12th June, 2014.

As there was a transfer of the Petitioner from unaided post to aided

post on 15th June, 2018 by the management, proposal was submitted to



Patil-SR                              1 of 5
                                                                   904 wp-11846-2024(c).doc


the Education Officer seeking approval. The Education Officer passed

the impugned order granting approval on consolidated pay scale for the

post of Shikshan Sevak, relying on the Government Circular dated 28 th

June, 2016.


3.         Mr. Bhavake, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that

the issue has been settled by various decisions of this Court, and in

particular, by the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in

the case of Sandip Dilip Thorat vs State of Maharashtra1 in Writ

Petition No. 168 of 2021 and connected Petitions. He submits that the

Hon’ble Division Bench considered the clauses of the Government

Circular dated 28th June, 2016 and has held that Sub-Clause 5(A) of

Clause 3 of Government Circular can be invoked only where the

Assistant Teacher has not completed three years period after his

appointment in the school on unaided basis and that he has not

received approval to his service as an Assistant Teacher on regular basis.

He would point out that in the present case, the Petitioner has

completed five years of service short of five days, and therefore,

approval was required to be granted for the post of Assistant Teacher in

regular pay scale.




1    WP No. 168 of 2021 decided on 22/07/2021 at Principal Seat.


Patil-SR                                      2 of 5
                                                                    904 wp-11846-2024(c).doc


4.         Per contra, learned AGP would submit that the Petitioner had filed

an undertaking with the Education Officer admitting that she has not

completed a period of five years, and that she is agreeable to the

approval being granted as Shikshan Sevak on consolidated pay for a

period of three years. She would submit that in the decision of Sandip

Dilip Thorat vs State of Maharashtra (supra), the Hon’ble Division

Bench held that approval can be granted as assistant teacher, and not

Shikshan Sevak, only upon the completion of five year period on

unaided post.


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


6.         The decision in the case of Sandip Dilip Thorat vs State of

Maharashtra (supra) covers the present issue. In that case, the Hon’ble

Division Bench had the occasion to consider various clauses of the

Government Circular dated 28th June, 2016. It noted the provisions of

the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)

Rules, 1981, as well as the judicial pronouncements on the subject. It

also noted the decision in the case of Sagar Harichandra Bhande vs

State of Maharashtra2, where it was held that when an Assistant

Teacher has already completed three years period, there is no justifiable

reason to ask the Assistant Teacher to work again as Shikshan Sevak on


2    WP(St) No. 93916 of 2020 decided on 12/03/2021 by Bombay High Court


Patil-SR                                    3 of 5
                                                                 904 wp-11846-2024(c).doc


consolidated pay for three years. It held in paragraph 19 as under :


              “19.       It is clear from these Petitions that the respective
              Petitioners had rendered service on unaided basis as Assistant
              Teacher in the respective Secondary Schools and were transferred
              to the aided division of the respective Secondary Schools on the
              basic sanctioned post which had become vacant on the said aided
              division and the said post was already on 100% grant-in-aid basis.
              It has been clearly held by the Division Bench of this Court in the
              case of Sagar S/0. Harichandra Bhande & Anr. (supra), where the
              Assistant Teacher had already completed three years period,
              there is no justifiable reason to ask the Assistant Teacher to work
              again as Shikshan Sevak on consolidated pay for three years. Sub-
              Clause 5(A) of Clause 3 of the said Government Circular can be
              invoked only where the Assistant teacher has not completed
              three years period after his appointment in the school on unaided
              basis and that he has not received approval to his services as an
              Assistant Teacher on regular basis.”


7.         In the present case, it is undisputed that the Petitioner has

completed three years probation period as Shikshan Sevak. The

Petitioner satisfies the criteria for being granted approval as Assistant

Teacher on regular pay scale. Applying the settled position in law to the

present case, the impugned order is clearly unsustainable. Though, it is

sought to be contended by learned AGP that the requirement is of five

years, the issue has now been settled by the judicial decisions of this

Court. As the Petitioner has completed probation period of three years,

upon her transfer to an aided post, she is entitled to approval as an

Assistant Teacher in the regular pay scale.

8.         Resultantly, the impugned order dated 31 st August, 2019, is

quashed and set aside. The Education Officer is directed to grant

approval for the transfer of Petitioner from the unaided post to the


Patil-SR                                  4 of 5
                                                     904 wp-11846-2024(c).doc


aided post in the regular pay scale as an Assistant Teacher within a

period of two weeks from today. The arrears of salary to be released

within a period of four weeks thereafter. The Petition is allowed.

9.         In view of the disposal of writ petition, nothing survives for

consideration in the Interim Applications, if any, and the same stands

disposed of.



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




Patil-SR                           5 of 5