Bombay High Court
VINOD SURESH MAHAMUNI AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHA. THR. SEC. SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPT AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition was disposed without granting relief, with the court directing the petitioners to make a representation and the Education Officer to decide the matter.
Summary
The petitioners, a peon and the managing society of a fully aided secondary school, sought a court direction to revise the 2011 order that approved the peon's appointment on an unaided basis to a fully aided basis and to release the corresponding grant‑in‑aid, including arrears. The school had earlier obtained staff sanction orders sanctioning both peon posts on a fully aided basis for several academic years. The Education Officer had approved the peon's appointment on an unaided basis in 2011, and later refused to revise it. The High Court allowed the petitioners to make a representation to the Education Officer within two weeks and directed the officer to decide within four weeks, leaving all contentions open and disposing of the writ petition without granting the relief sought.
Issues considered
- Whether the order approving the appointment of a peon on an unaided basis can be revised to a fully aided basis
- Whether grant‑in‑aid, including arrears, can be released for the appointment
Legislation cited
Subjects
- appointment
- aided versus unaided
- grant-in-aid
- school staff
- writ petition
- representation
- education law
Judgment
401_WP_12089_2022.DOC
Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12089 OF 2022
Vinod Suresh Mahamuni & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maha.
through Sec. School Education Dept. & Ors. ...Respondents
_______
Mr Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate a/w Vinayak R. Kumbhar,
Rajendra B. Khaire i/by Ashwini N. Bandiwadekar, for Petitioners.
Ms Devyani S. Deshmukh, AGP for Respondent - State.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 28th SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.
1. By this petition, the Petitioners seek a direction to Respondent No. 2 –
Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Thane, to issue a revised order
approving the appointment of Petitioner No. 1 as a Peon on a fully aided basis,
with effect from 1st June 2011, in place of the approval granted on an unaided basis
by the order dated 12th September 2011, and to release grant-in-aid towards his
salary, including arrears. A consequential direction is sought against Respondent
No. 3 – Deputy Director of Education, Mumbai Region, to enter the name of
Petitioner No. 1 in the Shalarth system and allot him a Shalarth ID.
Page 1 of 3
401_WP_12089_2022.DOC
2. Petitioner No. 2 – Swami Vivekanand Education Society operates the
Swami Vivekanand High School at Ulhasnagar, District Thane, a recognised and
fully aided secondary school governed by the Maharashtra Employees of Private
Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, and the Rules framed
thereunder. By the staff sanction (Sanch Manyata) order dated 13 th August 2010,
Respondent No. 2 sanctioned two Peon posts for the School on an aided basis. No
teaching or non-teaching posts were sanctioned on an unaided or partially aided
basis. By an order dated 2nd November 2010, the two Peons, then in service,
including one, Smt. Varsha Sonar, were approved on a 100% aided basis. Smt.
Sonar resigned with effect from 31st May 2011. To fill the vacancy, the Management
advertised the post in the ‘Daily Mumbai Mirror’ and, after interviewing the
candidates, selected Petitioner No. 1, who joined as a Peon on 1 st June 2011. On the
School’s proposal dated 5th September 2011, Respondent No. 2, by an order dated
12th September 2011, approved the appointment of Petitioner No. 1 with effect
from 1st June 2011, on probation, but on an unaided basis.
3. The staff sanction orders dated 18th August 2011, 29th August 2012 and 10th
October 2014, covering the academic years 2010-11 to 2013-14, continued to
sanction both posts of Peon on a fully aided basis and no non-teaching post on an
unaided basis. The Management and the Headmistress requested Respondent No.
2 to correct the order of approval, recently, by letters dated 5 th August 2022 and
24th August 2022. According to the Petitioners, Respondent No. 2 orally informed
them that her predecessor had issued the order in 2011 and that it could not now
be revised.
Page 2 of 3
401_WP_12089_2022.DOC
4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Considering the averments
in the petition, the Petitioner is permitted to make a representation to Respondent
No. 2 regarding approval of his appointment as a Peon, within a period of two
weeks from today. If such representation is made, Respondent No. 2 shall decide
the same within a period of four weeks thereafter.
5. All contentions of all the parties are left open.
6. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
PRASAD
RAJENDRASING
RAJPUT
Digitally signed by
PRASAD
RAJENDRASING
RAJPUT
Date: 2026.09.30
19:03:38 +0530
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.