SHARVARI SANTOSH THASALE (NEE. DIPALI DASHARATH KHEDEKAR)versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. SECRETARY AND ORS.

2026:BHC-KOL:9569-DB

                                                                       30-WP-13090-2025(C).doc


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 13090 OF 2025

               Sharvari Santosh Thasale                                    ...Petitioner
               (Nee : Dipali Dasharath Khedekar)
                         Versus
               The State of Maharashtra and Others                         ...Respondents
                                              ——————
               Mr. Prashant Bhavake, for the Petitioner.
               Mr. Vikas M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent-State.
                                              ——————
                                                  Coram :     Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                                              Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                                  Date      : October 05, 2026.
               P. C. :

               1.        By the present Petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated

               7th August, 2015, passed by the Education Officer, rejecting the proposal

               for appointment of the Petitioner to the post of Shikshan Sevak in

               Respondent No. 7 – Secondary School with effect from 1st July, 2015.

               2.        The Petition pleads that, on 8th May, 2015, due to the demise of

               the then Assistant Teacher of Hindi subject, a vacancy was created for

               the post of Shikshan Sevak. In the years 2013 and 2015, applications

               were made to Respondent No. 5 – Education Officer, for communicating

               the information of suitable surplus Assistant Teachers for absorption in

               the said vacant post.




               Jamadar - SL                        1 of 5
                                                             30-WP-13090-2025(C).doc


3.       The Education Officer, by communication of June, 2015, informed

the Management that, as the staffing pattern for the year 2014-2015

had not yet been finalized, the application seeking permission for

advertisement could not be considered. On 21 st May, 2015, an

advertisement came to be published, pursuant to which the Petitioner

applied and came to be appointed. A proposal was submitted seeking

approval to the appointment of Petitioner, which came to be rejected by

the impugned order.

4.       Mr. Bhavake, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would

submit that the proposal came to be rejected on several grounds. He

would submit that insofar as the rejection on the ground of the ban on

recruitment imposed by the Government Resolution dated 2nd May,

2012 is concerned, the Petitioner was appointed to the reserved post

and, therefore, in view of the decision in the case of in the case of Smt.

Munoli Rajashri Karabasappa Vs. State of Maharashtra Through

Secretary & Others1, a copy of which is annexed at Page 86 of the

Petition, the ban on recruitment would not apply.

5.       He would further submit that the ground which is at Serial No. 2

was as regards the non-obtaining of permission for publishing the

advertisement based on the issue of staffing pattern. He submits that

the post to which the Petitioner came to be appointed was sanctioned

1    Writ Petition No. 8587 of 2016 dated 10th July, 2017.


Jamadar - SL                                2 of 5
                                                   30-WP-13090-2025(C).doc


post and became vacant by reason of the demise of the earlier Assistant

Teacher, and, therefore, the said issue of approval of the staffing

pattern would not apply. He would submit that the reasons cited at

Serial Nos. 3 to 6 of the impugned order are deficiencies which can be

complied with by the Management.

6.      We have considered the submissions and perused the record.

7.      Insofar as the ban on recruitment imposed by the Government

Resolution dated 2nd May, 2012 is concerned, the decision in the case of

Smt. Munoli Rajashri Karabasappa Vs. State of Maharashtra Through

Secretary & Others (supra) carves out an exception where the

recruitment is made to fulfill the backlog of reserved category

candidates. The Education officer to take into consideration the said

decision and in the event the recruitment was for the purpose of

fulfilling the backlog of reserved category candidates, the ban imposed

by the Government Resolution dated 2nd May, 2012 would not apply.

8.      Insofar as the rejection on the ground that no permission for

advertisement has been taken from the Education Officer is concerned,

the application dated 19th May, 2015 annexed at Page 41A of the

Petition makes a reference to an application for advertisement made on

27th May, 2013. The response of the Education Officer does not deny

that such an application was made in the year 2013. There was no




Jamadar - SL                     3 of 5
                                                     30-WP-13090-2025(C).doc


response to the said application and it is only after a period of almost

two years, when the advertisement was issued on 21 st May, 2015, that in

June, 2015 the request was not considered on the ground of non-

approval of staffing pattern.

9.      It is open for the Management to satisfy the Education Officer

about the applications filed seeking permission for advertisement and

not considered and therefore cannot constitute a ground for rejection

of the proposal. Insofar as the reasons cited at Serial Nos.3 to 6 are

concerned, the Management is directed to comply with the deficiencies.

10.     In light of the discussion above, we are inclined to set aside the

impugned order rejecting the proposal for approval and remit the

proposal to the Education Officer for consideration afresh, in the light

of the observations of the present order and upon the Management

complying with the deficiencies.

11.     The Management to comply with the deficiencies within a period

of two weeks from today.

12.     The Education Officer to take into consideration the observations

made in the present order and the explanations submitted by the

Management, and to decide the proposal afresh, expeditiously, and in

any event within a period of four weeks thereafter, uninfluenced by the

earlier rejection of the approval.




Jamadar - SL                         4 of 5
                                                      30-WP-13090-2025(C).doc


13.     In the event the approval is granted, Respondent No.4 to include

the name of the Petitioner in the Shalarth Pranali and issue the Shalarth

ID within a period of two weeks thereafter, and release the grant-in-aid

salary within a period of four weeks thereafter.

14.     The Petition is allowed in the above terms.




 [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.]                       [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]




Jamadar - SL                      5 of 5