PRABODHAN SHIKSHAN PRASARAK SANSTHA AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU THE SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDU. AND SPORTS DEPT. AND ORS

2026:BHC-KOL:9104-DB

                                                                      38-WP-13718-2023(C).doc


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

                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 13718 OF 2023

               Prabodhan Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha And Others            ...Petitioners
                         Versus
               The State of Maharashtra and Others                       ...Respondents
                                               ——————
               Mr. Prashant Bhavake, for the Petitioners.
               Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State.
                                               ——————
                                                 Coram :     Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                                             Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                                 Date      : September 22, 2026.
               P. C. :

               1.        By the present Petition, the challenge is to the impugned order

               dated 2nd/5th December, 2022, by which the Petitioners’ proposal for

               seeking approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.3 to the post of

               Shikshan Sevak (Physical Training Teacher) came to be rejected.

               2.        Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners would point out

               that the rejection was on the ground of the proposal being submitted

               belatedly, by relying upon the Government Resolution dated 10 th June,

               2022. He submits that the Government Resolution dated 10 th June, 2022

               does not apply, as the said Resolution was issued calling for submission

               of proposals which had not been filed though appointments were made,

               within a period of 3 months. He submits that, in the present case, the


               Jamadar - SL                       1 of 4
                                                   38-WP-13718-2023(C).doc


Petitioner No.3 was appointed on 1 st August, 2022, and the proposal

was submitted on 11th November, 2022.

3.      He would further submits that the other reason does not

constitute a ground for rejection, as it is stated that there is no

provision for appointment to the post of Physical Training Teacher

through the Pavitra Portal. He submits that no other reasons are

assigned for rejecting the proposal, and the impugned order is

unsustainable.

4.      Learned AGP appearing for the Respondents would submit that

the Petitioner No.3 was not appointed through the prescribed

procedure, and therefore, the proposal was rejected. She would further

submit that the appointment of Petitioner No.3 was subsequent to the

issuance of the Government Resolution dated 10th June, 2022, and

therefore, the proposal has been rightly rejected by the Education

Officer.

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

6.      The proposal seeking approval to the appointment of Petitioner

No.3 was forwarded on 10th November, 2022, in which it was specifically

mentioned that one Rajendra Mahadev Kadam had retired on 31 st July,

2022, and, as the post had become vacant, considering the Petitioner's

qualification, he was appointed to the post of Shikshan Sevak in the

subject of Physical Training.


Jamadar - SL                     2 of 4
                                                    38-WP-13718-2023(C).doc


7.      Though contention is being raised by the learned AGP that the

appointment is not in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law,

the impugned order does not reject the proposal on the said ground. It

is well-settled that the reasons for rejection cannot be supplemented

during the hearing or by way of an Affidavit. The Education Officer has

rejected the proposal only on the ground of the Government Resolution

dated 10th June, 2022.

8.      The Government Resolution is annexed at page 59 of the Petition.

The Government Resolution provides that the proposals which have not

been submitted in respect of the teaching and non-teaching staff

employed by the private schools should be submitted within a period of

three months.

9.      In the present case, the Petitioner No.3 was appointed on 1 st

August, 2022, and therefore, the Government Resolution dated 10 th

June, 2022 is not applicable, as it refers to the appointments made prior

to 10th June, 2022 and calls upon the Management to submit the

proposals within three months thereafter.

10.     The proposal has been submitted on 11 th November, 2022, and

there is no delay in its submission. The Education Officer, by the

impugned order, has itself recorded that there was no provision for

appointment of the Physical Training Teacher through the Pavitra




Jamadar - SL                     3 of 4
                                                      38-WP-13718-2023(C).doc


Portal, and therefore, the said reason is not germane for rejecting the

approval.

11.     In light of the above, the impugned order is clearly unsustainable

and is hereby quashed and set aside.

12.     Respondent No.5 – Education Officer is directed to grant approval

to the appointment of Petitioner No.3 within a period of three weeks

from today.

13.     Upon the approval being granted, Respondent No.4 – Deputy

Director of Education to include the name of Petitioner No.3 in the

Shalarth Pranali and issue the Shalarth ID within a period of two weeks

thereafter. The arrears of grant-in-aid salary to be released within a

period of three weeks thereafter.

14.     The Petition is allowed in the above terms.




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




Jamadar - SL                      4 of 4