Bombay High Court
VIKAS SAHEBRAO KAMBLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed, upholding the Education Officer's rejection of the appointment approval.
Summary
The petitioner, Vikas, sought a writ to quash the Education Officer's order rejecting approval of his appointment as Assistant Teacher at Tirupati Vidyalaya, a school run by Jay Bhawani Shikshan Sanstha. The school had initially advertised a vacancy for a Scheduled Tribe (ST) post twice in 2016 without any candidates appearing, and subsequently advertised the same post as a Scheduled Caste (SC) vacancy, appointing the petitioner on 29 June 2016. The petitioner argued that the Education Officer erred by not granting a hearing and that the change of reservation was justified due to student difficulties. The respondents contended that the vacancy was originally for an ST post and that the school could not unilaterally alter the reservation category without permission, and that there was no documentary evidence of the earlier advertisements. The Court found no evidence supporting the petitioner's claim of a legitimate SC vacancy, noted the nine‑year delay in forwarding the approval proposal, and held that the Education Officer's rejection was proper. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Education Officer was required to afford a hearing before rejecting the approval proposal.
- Whether the school could lawfully change the reservation category of the vacancy from Scheduled Tribe to Scheduled Caste without prior permission.
- Whether a genuine vacancy existed for a Scheduled Caste post at the time of appointment.
- Whether the nine‑year delay in forwarding the approval proposal affects the validity of the rejection.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- reservation
- Scheduled Caste
- Scheduled Tribe
- appointment
- education
- writ petition
- administrative law
- hearing
- vacancy
- Right to Information Act
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:3716-DB
wp-12373-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.12373 OF 2025
Vikas s/o Sahebrao Kamble .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
School Education and Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Director of Education,
Secondary and Higher Secondary,
Directorate of Education,
Central Building, Camp,
Near Sasun Hospital, Pune – 411 001.
3. The Deputy Director of Education
Latur Division, Latur.
4. The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Latur.
5. The President,
Jay Bhawani Shikshan Sanstha,
Pangaon, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur.
6. The Head Master,
Tirupati Vidyalaya, Pangaon,
Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur. .. Respondents
…
Mr. T. M. Venjane, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for the respondents/State.
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
DATE : 17 JANUARY 2026
[1]
wp-12373-2025.odt
ORDER (Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.) :-
. Present petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the
impugned communication dated 11.07.2025 issued by Education Officer
(Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Latur, thereby rejecting the proposal for
grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant
Teacher. The consequential prayers have also been prayed.
2. The petitioner has come with the case that one Tirupati Vidyalaya,
Pangaon, Taluka Renapur, District Latur is run by Jay Bhawani Shikshan
Sanstha. There was vacancy of the Assistant Teacher from Scheduled
Tribe category and, therefore, the institution had published
advertisement to fill up the said post on 31.03.2016. As no candidate
from Scheduled Tribe category attended the interview, again the said
institution published advertisement on 31.05.2016 for the said post from
Scheduled Tribe category, however, again no candidate attended the
interview and, therefore, taking into consideration the difficulties of the
students, the institution published another advertisement on 10.06.2016
for the post of Assistant Teacher from Scheduled Caste category.
Thereafter, the petitioner came to be appointed from Scheduled Caste
category by appointment order dated 29.06.2016. Petitioner joined his
services on 01.07.2016. Thereafter, the proposal was sent by the
[2]
wp-12373-2025.odt
Headmaster on 23.06.2025 for grant of approval to the appointment of
the petitioner. Without calling any queries from the school, the Education
Officer (Secondary) by order dated 11.07.2025 rejected the said
proposal. Hence, the petition.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner made submissions taking into
consideration the documents on record and submits that when the
petitioner is from the Scheduled Caste category, the decision to appoint
him was taken by the management taking into consideration the
difficulties of the students. The Education Officer erred in not giving an
opportunity to the institution as well as the petitioner of hearing before
taking the decision.
4. Per contra, learned AGP supported the decision and submits that
even the documents produced by the petitioner would show that there
was no vacancy for the post of Assistant Teacher from Scheduled Caste
category. Vacancy was from Scheduled Tribe category. The institution
could not have interchanged the reservation.
5. Here, it is to be noted that there is absolutely no documentary
evidence to support the contention of the petitioner that on the earlier
two occasions when the advertisement was published by the institution
i.e. on 31.03.2016, 31.05.2016, no candidate from Scheduled Tribe
[3]
wp-12373-2025.odt
category appeared for the interview. It is not even clear as to how many
persons had applied for the post and as to why their applications came to
be rejected. Now, before shifting the reservation or before publishing
advertisement on 10.06.2016 for the post of Assistant Teacher from
Scheduled Caste whether the institution had sought permission of
respondent No.4, is a question. The learned Advocate for the petitioner
tried to submit that the petitioner cannot be said to be the person, who
would be holding documents to that effect and only the institution can
possess those documents. Here, petitioner has produced those documents
also, which in the ordinary course could not have been in the custody of
the petitioner. It could have been made available to him under the Right
to Information Act or if the petitioner is having good relations with the
appointing authority, then it could have been made available to him like
other documents, which he has already produced. The fact then remains
is that there was no vacancy in the institution for the post of Assistant
Teacher for Scheduled Caste category and the institution without seeking
permission, has published the advertisement on 10.06.2016. Further, the
proposal that has been forwarded by the institution on 23.06.2025 is
totally silent about issuance of two earlier advertisements with no
response from the candidates of Scheduled Tribe category and then the
institution had then issued the advertisement for the said post from
[4]
wp-12373-2025.odt
Scheduled Caste category. The said proposal is also silent as to why in
spite of getting the petitioner allegedly resumed his duties on
01.07.2016, the proposal was not forwarded within a stipulated period.
The proposal has been forwarded after about nine years. Therefore, the
reason for rejection of proposal is appropriate which requires no
interference. There is no merit in the petition. Hence, the writ petition
stands dismissed.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
scm
[5]
Checking your session…