Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

NISHANT PARASHURAM MAHALKARIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal
Allowed

Holding

The impugned order rejecting the appointment was quashed and the Education Officer was directed to approve the petitioner’s appointment as junior clerk.

Summary

The petitioner, Nishant Parashuram Mahalkari, challenged the Education Officer’s order rejecting approval of his appointment as junior clerk in a partially aided private school, alleging the rejection was based on a purported surplus of non‑teaching staff. The petitioner argued that his appointment dated 10 June 2024 preceded the Director’s communication of 28 May 2025, which barred approvals unless surplus staff were absorbed, and that no surplus junior clerk existed according to the officer’s own minutes. The respondents contended that the appointment must comply with the surplus‑staff rule under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 and the Regulation Act, 1977. The court examined the chronology, the applicability of the 2025 communication, and a later Government Resolution dated 11 August 2026, finding that the rejection was unsustainable. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order, directed the Education Officer to approve the appointment, and ordered the release of arrears and issuance of necessary identification within stipulated periods.

Issues considered

  • Whether the Education Officer’s rejection of the appointment on the ground of surplus non‑teaching staff complies with the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 and Regulation Act, 1977.
  • Whether the Director’s communication dated 28 May 2025, and the subsequent Government Resolution dated 11 August 2026, affect the validity of the rejection.
  • Whether the appointment made on 10 June 2024, prior to the 28 May 2025 communication, can be upheld despite the alleged surplus.
  • Whether the Education Officer is obligated to grant approval to the appointment and release the petitioner’s arrears.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • appointment
  • surplus staff
  • private school
  • education officer
  • partially aided post
  • judicial review
  • writ petition
  • government resolution
  • service rules

Judgment

2026:BHC-KOL:8848-DB

                                                                          18-WP-11950-2025.doc


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

                                   WRIT PETITION NO. 11950 OF 2025


               Nishant Parashuram Mahalkari                               ...Petitioner
                         Versus
               The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary And Others ...Respondents

                                               ——————
               Mr. Sandeep Koregave a/w Ms. Supriya Koregave, for the Petitioner.
               Mr. A.P.Vanarase, AGP for the Respondent-State.
               Ms. Ashok Misal (through VC), for the Respondent No. 5.
                                               ——————
                                                 Coram :     SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
                                                             NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
                                                 Date      : SEPTEMBER 11, 2026
               P. C. :

               1.        By the present Petition, the Petitioner impugns the order dated

               25th June, 2025 passed by the Education Officer rejecting the proposal

               for approval to the Petitioner’s appointment on a partially aided post of

               junior clerk with effect from 10th June, 2024 in Respondent No. 7-school.

               2.        The Petitioner was appointed in the Respondent No. 7 school

               after the post of junior clerk became vacant, upon retirement of one Mr.

               Parshuram Bhaskar Mahalkari on 30th April, 2024. On 8th April, 2024,

               Respondent No. 6 applied to the Respondent No. 5-Education Officer

               seeking permission to initiate the recruitment process to fill the said

               post by issuing advertisement, to which there was no response.


               Arya Chavan                        1 of 4
                                                       18-WP-11950-2025.doc


Subsequently, the management issued an advertisement, to which the

Petitioner applied and was selected by appointment order dated 10 th

June, 2024. On 12th June, 2024, a proposal was sent to the Education

Officer seeking approval to the appointment of the Petitioner on the

partially aided post of junior clerk in Respondent No. 7-school, which

was rejected by the impugned order.

3.      Learned counsel for the Petitioner would point out that the

grounds for rejection was availability of surplus non-teaching staff, and

in view of the communication dated 28th May, 2025. He would further

submit that the Education Officer failed to notice that the Petitioner's

appointment was made on 10th June, 2024 i.e. prior to the issuance of

communication dated 28th May, 2025, and in any event, there was no

surplus junior clerk available, as per the Education Officer’s own

minutes regarding the availability of surplus staff.

4.      Per contra, learned AGP would support the impugned order and

would submit that since the post of junior clerk is of direct service, the

appointment is required to be done after completing Sanch Manyata

surplus rule as per the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools

(Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981,and its regulations.

5.      The only ground on which the approval was rejected is that the

surplus non-teaching staff was available, and the communication dated

28th May, 2025, issued by the Director of Education prohibits approval to


Arya Chavan                       2 of 4
                                                        18-WP-11950-2025.doc


be granted unless surplus staff is absorbed. Insofar as the

communication dated 28th May, 2025 is concerned, the Petitioner has

been appointed on 10th June, 2024, and after seeking permission from

the Respondent-Education Officer on 8th April, 2024, to fill the post by

issuing advertisement. It is only due to inaction on part of Respondent-

Education Officer that the management, in compliance of Section 5 of

the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)

Regulation Act, 1977, proceeded to fill the vacant post of junior clerk. In

any event, the communication dated 28th May, 2025 already stands

superseded by Government Resolution dated 11th August, 2026. The

rejection on the ground of non-absorption of surplus junior clerk will

also not survive in view of the Education Officer’s own minutes dated

16th July, 2025 annexed at page 51 of the Petition. Perusal of the said

minutes would indicate that no surplus junior clerk was available at the

time of the Petitioner's appointment.

6.      In light of the above, the impugned order is clearly unsustainable

and is hereby quashed and set aside.

7.      The Education Officer is directed to grant approval to the

appointment of the Petitioner on the post of junior clerk with effect

from 10th June, 2024 within a period of three weeks from today.

8.      After approval has been granted, Respondent No. 3 to include the

name of the Petitioner in Shalarth Pranali and issue Shalarth ID within a


Arya Chavan                       3 of 4
                                                      18-WP-11950-2025.doc


period of two weeks thereafter. The Petitioner’s arrears of grant-in-aid

salary to be released within a period of three weeks thereafter.

9.      The Petition is allowed in the above terms.

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

disposed of.




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




Arya Chavan                       4 of 4


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.