Bombay High Court
AABA MADADU BIDGAR AND ANRversusTHE EDUCATION OFFICER SECONDARY ZILLHA PARISHAD NASHIK AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the Education Officer must decide the promotion proposal within four weeks and provide the petitioners an opportunity to be heard.
Summary
The petitioners, an assistant teacher and a management representative, sought a direction for the Education Officer to decide a promotion proposal dated 20 November 2025 for the petitioner to be appointed Headmaster. The promotion was recommended by the school management on 30 October 2025, but the Education Officer raised objections on 4 June 2026, which were answered by the management on 9 June 2026, and no decision was thereafter taken. The petitioners argued that the statutory duty under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 requires a decision within a reasonable time and that the ten‑month delay caused uncertainty. The Court held that the Education Officer must act promptly and decided that the delay was unreasonable. Accordingly, the Court directed the Education Officer to decide the proposal within four weeks and to afford the petitioners an opportunity to be heard. The writ petition was allowed and no costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether the Education Officer's delay in deciding the promotion proposal violates the statutory duty under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977.
- Whether the Court can compel the Education Officer to decide the promotion proposal within a specified time and provide a hearing.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- promotion
- headmaster
- education officer
- delay
- statutory duty
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act
- writ petition
- administrative law
Judgment
403-WP-12697-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12697 OF 2026
Aaba Mahadu Bidgar and Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad Nashik and Ors. ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Anilkumar Patil i/by Digvijay A. Patil, for the Petitioners.
Ms. P.N. Diwan, AGP for the Respondent – State.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 24th SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.
1. By this petition, the Petitioners seek a direction to Respondent No. 1 – the
Education Officer (Secondary) to decide the proposal dated 20 th November 2025
for approval of the Petitioner’s promotion to Headmaster.
2. Petitioner No. 1 has been working as an Assistant Teacher since 1 st
September 1995 at a secondary school in Nandurshingote, Taluka Sinnar, District
Nashik, conducted by Petitioner No. 2 – Management. The post of Headmaster
fell vacant on 30th November 2024 upon the retirement of the incumbent. By a
resolution dated 30th October 2025, the Management resolved to promote
Petitioner No. 1, who is stated to be the senior-most teacher holding the B.A.,
B.Ed. qualification, to the said post. The Management submitted a proposal dated
20th November 2025 seeking approval of the promotion to Respondent No. 1 –
Page 1 of 3
Prasad
403-WP-12697-2026.DOC
Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nashik.
3. The Petitioners' grievance is that the proposal remains undecided.
Respondent No. 1, by a letter dated 4 th June 2026, raised certain objections, which
the Management answered by its reply dated 9 th June 2026. No decision has been
taken thereafter. Petitioner No. 1 also submitted a representation dated 27 th July
2026 to Respondent No. 2, Deputy Director of Education, Nashik Division, to
which no response has been received. The Petitioners, therefore, seeks a direction
to Respondent No. 1 to decide the proposal.
4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The grant or refusal of
approval for the promotion of a teacher as Headmaster, under the Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and
the Rules framed thereunder, is a statutory function that Respondent No. 1 must
discharge within a reasonable time. A proposal submitted on 21 st November 2025
could not have been kept pending for over ten months, especially when
Respondent No. 1's objections were answered as far back as 9 th June 2026. Such
inaction leaves Petitioner No. 1 and the administration of the school in uncertainty.
5. We accordingly direct as under:
(i) Respondent No. 1 – Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Nashik shall decide the proposal dated 20th November 2025
(submitted on 21st November 2025) seeking approval for the
promotion of Petitioner No. 1 to the post of Headmaster, after
considering the Management’s reply dated 9 th June 2026, in
accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of
uploading this order.
Page 2 of 3
Prasad
403-WP-12697-2026.DOC
(ii) Before deciding on the proposal, Respondent No. 1 shall give the
Petitioners an opportunity to be heard.
(iii) All contentions of the parties on the merits of the proposal are kept
open.
6. The Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
PRASAD
RAJENDRASING
RAJPUT
Digitally signed by
PRASAD
RAJENDRASING
RAJPUT
Date: 2026.09.29
10:43:53 +0530
Page 3 of 3
Prasad
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.