Bombay High Court

KIRAN DILIP MUTKULEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

A Government Resolution cannot be applied retrospectively unless expressly provided, and the petitioner’s pre‑existing appointment must be upheld.

Summary

The petitioner, Kiran Dilip Mutkule, challenged a communication dated 08 July 2025 that rejected his appointment as Lab Assistant in a school, relying on a Government Resolution dated 4 April 2025. The petition argued that his appointment, made on 10 March 2024, preceded the resolution and therefore should not be affected by it. The Court examined whether a government resolution can be applied retrospectively in the absence of an explicit stipulation. Relying on its earlier decision in Avinash Kamdev Sherkhane v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that such resolutions cannot operate retrospectively and that the appointment was valid. Consequently, the impugned communication was set aside and the Education Officer was directed to obtain a fresh proposal from the institution within four weeks and decide within two weeks. The writ petition was disposed.

Issues considered

Can the Government Resolution dated 04‑04‑2025 be applied retrospectively to appointments made before its issuance?
Is the communication rejecting the petitioner's appointment valid under the applicable procedural rules?
Should the Education Officer be directed to seek a fresh proposal and re‑evaluate the appointment?

Subjects

appointment
government resolution
retrospective application
writ petition
education officer
lab assistant
Maharashtra
High Court

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:35263-DB


                                                     *1*                       148


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               148 WRIT PETITION NO. 12794 OF 2025

                                    KIRAN DILIP MUTKULE
                                            VERSUS
                  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
                                   SECRETARY AND OTHERS
                                                ...
                Mr. T. M. Venjane, Advocate for the Petitioner
                Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for Respondents/State
                                                ...

                                      CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI &
                                              ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                                      DATE : 6th AUGUST 2026

                P. C. :-

                1.         By this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the

                communication dated 08.07.2025 issued by respondent.

                No.4 – Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalna,

                by which the proposal seeking approval to the appointment

                of the petitioner has been turned down, by relying on the

                communication of the Respondent No.2 - the Director of

                Education, Pune dated 28.05.2025, which is based on the

                Government Resolution dated 04.04.2025 issued by the

                School Education and Sports Department.

                2.         The petitioner has been appointed on the post of Lab

                Narwade
                                   *2*                       148


Assistant vide appointment order dated 24.02.2022 in Jijau

Dharmarth Davakhana and Shikshan Sanstha, Jalna. The

said school accordingly on 19.03.2025 submitted a proposal

seeking approval to his appointment. The said proposal has

been turned down by the respondent No.4 by impugned

order and, therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

3.        Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the

order dated 25.11.2025 passed by this Court in Writ

Petition No.12798/2025 in the case of Avinash Kamdev

Sherkhane Vs. The State of Maharashtra through its

Principal Secretary and others, submits that this Court in

case of similarly circumstanced petitioners has set aside the

communication by directing the concerned Education

Officer to get a fresh proposal from the Education

Institution within a period of one month by scrutinizing the

same and decide it accordingly within a period of two

months thereafter.



4.        The relevant observations of this Court in paragraph


Narwade
                                           *3*                               148


Nos.3 and 5 of said order are as follows :

           “3. It appears that the respondents are relying on the
           communication dated 28.05.2025 which is stated to be based
           on Government Resolution dated 04.04.2025. As per the
           petitioner, he came to be appointed in view of advertisement
           that was given on 25.02.2024 and the appointment order was
           on the clear sanctioned post of Lab Assistant. He was given an
           appointment order on 10.03.2024 and he resume his duty on
           11.03.2024. In order to show that there was a clear vacancy,
           the petitioner has supplied the copy of Sanch Manyata of the
           year 2018-2019 as well as 2023-2024. We are not aware as to
           whether along with the proposal that was sent by the
           Educational Institution these Sanch Manyata was given or not
           in respect of the year 2023-2024. Impugned communication
           dated 26.06.2025 states that the document that was annexed
           was of Sanch Manyata 2018-2019. It is also not clear as to
           whether along with the proposal, the document regarding
           permission for filling up the post of Lab Assistant was taken
           prior to 25.02.2024 or not by the Educational Institution. The
           Educational Institution is not party before this Court. Now the
           question would be for appointment that was made prior to
           Government Resolution dated 04.04.2025 whether the said
           Government Resolution can be made applicable. In other
           words, whether Government Resolution dated 04.04.2025 can
           be made applicable retrospectively is a question. If all the
           documents necessary for seeking approval were filed then it
           ought to have been then considered.
           5.      Certainly, we are of the opinion that a Government
           Resolution cannot be acted retrospectively unless there is
           specific stipulation for the same and if the appointment is as
           per the procedure and against a clear vacancy then it should
           be considered. We therefore, set aside the order dated
           26.06.2025 and direct the respondent No. 4 to get a fresh
           proposal from the Educational Institution within a period of
           one month, scrutinize it and decide within further two
           months.”

5.        In the light of the aforesaid observations of this Court,

we    set      aside     the    impugned         communication         dated

08.07.2025 and direct Respondent No.4 – Education Officer

to get a fresh proposal from concerned Education


Narwade
                                *4*                        148


Institutions within a period of four (4) weeks and scrutinize

the same and decide them accordingly within a period of

two (2) weeks thereafter. The writ petition is accordingly

disposed of.




(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)        (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)




Narwade

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…