Bombay High Court
ANITA SIDRAMAPPA HIRJEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. THE SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND ORS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Education Officer erred in rejecting the appointment on the grounds of the Model Code of Conduct and internal management disputes, and the order was quashed.
Summary
The petitioner challenged the rejection of her appointment to an unaided Assistant Teacher post by the Education Officer, who cited the Model Code of Conduct and internal management disputes as reasons. The Court held that the Model Code of Conduct was no longer applicable and that internal disputes were irrelevant to the officer’s statutory duty under the MEPS Act. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17 October 2024 was quashed and the matter remitted to the Education Officer for fresh consideration within three weeks, with directions for swift issuance of the Shalarth Id and release of arrears if approval is granted. The judgment emphasized that the officer must only consider compliance with the MEPS Act, Rules and applicable Government Resolutions. The petition was allowed in the terms specified.
Issues considered
- Whether the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct can be a valid ground for rejecting a teacher appointment after the election period.
- Whether internal disputes between rival factions of management are relevant to the Education Officer’s decision under the MEPS Act.
- Whether the Education Officer acted ultra vires by considering irrelevant factors in rejecting the appointment proposal.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Education (Post) Service Act
Subjects
- appointment
- unaided post
- Assistant Teacher
- Model Code of Conduct
- internal management dispute
- Education Officer
- MEPS Act
- writ petition
- quashing order
- Maharashtra
Judgment
2026:BHC-KOL:8847-DB
20 wp-12558-25.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12558 OF 2025
Anita Sidramappa Hirje. ...Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others. ...Respondents.
——————
Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate (through V.C.) along with Mr.
Sagar Mane, Rushikesh Jagdale for the Petitioner.
Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : September 11, 2026.
P. C. :
1. By the present petition, rejection of the proposal seeking
appointment of the Petitioner to the unaided post of Assistant Teacher
is challenged.
2. By the impugned order, the reasons given by the Education
Officer are the imposition of Model Code of Conduct in view of the
elections and that there appears to be an internal dispute between the
rival factions of management.
3. Insofar as the rejection on the ground of imposition of Model
Code of Conduct is concerned, the said ground no longer survives and it
is open for the Education Officer to consider the proposal for approval.
It was expected that in the event, the said reason was to be taken as a
Patil-SR 1 of 3
20 wp-12558-25.doc
ground, at the highest, the proposal should have been kept in abeyance,
to be considered subsequently and could not have been rejected on that
ground.
4. The second ground on which the rejection is premised is about
the internal disputes between the rival factions of management, with
which the Education Officer is not concerned. The Education Officer
while considering the proposal for grant of approval is required to take
into consideration, whether there is due compliance of the procedure
prescribed under the MEPS Act, MEPS Rules and applicable Government
Resolutions/Circulars. In event there is compliance of the same, the
Education Officer is expected to grant approval to the appointment of
Petitioner. Instead by the impugned order, the Education Officer has
taken into consideration irrelevant factors and has rejected the
proposal.
5. In the light of above, the impugned order dated 17 th October 2024
is hereby quashed and set aside. The proposal is remitted to the file of
Education Officer, to be considered afresh in the light of observations
made hereinabove and to be decided expeditiously and in any event
within a period of three weeks from today. The Education Officer to
take into consideration the applicable Rules/GRs at the time of
appointment of Petitioner.
Patil-SR 2 of 3
20 wp-12558-25.doc
6. In case, approval is granted, Respondent No.2 to include the name
of Petitioner in the Shalarth Pranali within two weeks thereafter and
issue Shalarth Id within a period of two weeks thereafter. Arrears of
grant-in-aid salary to be released within a period of three weeks
thereafter.
7. The petition is allowed in the above terms.
[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Patil-SR 3 of 3
Checking your session…