FAISAL PIRMOH MEDZADA ALIASGARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:43090-DB

                                                                            44 WP NO. 14493 OF 2023


                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 14493 OF 2023
                                        Faisal Pirmoh Medzada Aliasgar
                                                    VERSUS
                           The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
                                                       …
                       •   Mr. S. B. Parnere, Advocate for the Petitioner
                       •   Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 - State
                       •   Mr. S. S. Kazi, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 to 6
                                                       …
                                                     CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
                                                                JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
                                                       DATE   : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026
                PER COURT :

                1.            Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, the learned

                AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 – State and the learned Advocate for

                Respondent Nos. 4 to 6.

                2.            The Petitioner possesses the qualifications of B.Com. and

                B.P.Ed. Respondent No. 4 – Management had published an

                advertisement       in   the   daily    newspaper   Punya   Nagari       dated

                01.02.2023 inviting applications for appointment to the post of

                Shikshan Sevak. Pursuant to the selection process, Respondent No. 6

                – Sayyed Aasiya Kalim came to be appointed as Shikshan Sevak. The

                proposal seeking approval to her appointment is stated to be pending

                before Respondent No. 3 – Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla

                Parishad, Ahmednagar.




                Jhs/                                                                          1/4
                                                          44 WP NO. 14493 OF 2023


3.        The grievance of the Petitioner is that the advertisement

published in Punya Nagari prescribed B.P.Ed. as the requisite

qualification for the post. According to the Petitioner, Respondent No.

6 possesses only a B.Ed. degree and does not possess the qualification

of B.P.Ed. It is, therefore, contended that the appointment of

Respondent No. 6 is contrary to the qualification prescribed in the

advertisement and is liable to be declared illegal.

4.        The learned Advocate for the Petitioner further submits that

the Petitioner possesses the requisite qualification of B.P.Ed. and had

participated in the selection process. He, therefore, seeks a direction

that approval should not be granted to the appointment of

Respondent No. 6. A further prayer is made for setting aside the

selection proceedings conducted pursuant to the interview dated

15.02.2023 and for consideration of the Petitioner for appointment to

the post of Shikshan Sevak.

5.        Mr. Kazi, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 to 6,

vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that the Petitioner has

selectively placed on record only the advertisement published in

Punya Nagari. According to him, on the same date, an advertisement

was also published in the daily newspaper Lokmat, wherein the

requisite qualification was specifically stated to be B.P.Ed./B.Ed.




Jhs/                                                                        2/4
                                                        44 WP NO. 14493 OF 2023


6.        He further submits that Respondent No. 6 secured the

highest marks in the selection process and was, therefore, duly

appointed. The proposal seeking approval to her appointment has

already been forwarded to Respondent No. 3 – Education Officer

(Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. He submits that the

Petitioner, having participated in the selection process and having

failed to secure the highest marks, cannot seek appointment in place

of Respondent No. 6.

7.        Mr. Kazi further submits that Respondent No. 4 is a minority

institution and, therefore, the Petitioner cannot claim, as a matter of

right, that he should be appointed as Shikshan Sevak in the said

institution.

8.        The learned AGP appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3

submits that the proposal seeking approval to the appointment of

Respondent No. 6 is still pending before Respondent No. 3 –

Education Officer (Secondary). He submits that, if the Petitioner has

any grievance regarding the qualification or appointment of

Respondent No. 6, it is open for the Petitioner to raise such objection

before the Education Officer and the same shall be considered while

deciding the proposal.

9.        Considering the aforesaid position and particularly the fact

that the proposal for approval is yet to be decided by Respondent

Jhs/                                                                      3/4
                                                         44 WP NO. 14493 OF 2023


No. 3, we are of the view that the grievance raised by the Petitioner

can appropriately be considered by the Education Officer (Secondary)

while deciding the said proposal.

10.      It shall, therefore, be open for the Petitioner to raise his

objections before Respondent No. 3 – Education Officer (Secondary),

including the objection with regard to the requisite qualification for

the post and the eligibility of Respondent No. 6.

11.      Respondent No. 3 – Education Officer (Secondary) shall, if

the proposal has not already been decided, consider and decide the

proposal seeking approval to the appointment of Respondent No. 6 in

accordance with law, after considering the objections raised by the

Petitioner, the qualifications prescribed in the relevant advertisements

and the applicable legal position, including the Government

Resolution dated 13.07.2016.

12.      We expect Respondent No. 3 to take an appropriate decision

on the proposal as expeditiously as possible.

13.      We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the

merits of the rival claims of the parties, including the eligibility or

entitlement of either the Petitioner or Respondent No. 6.

14.      With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition stands

disposed of.


 [JITENDRA JAIN, J.]                            [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
Jhs/                                                                       4/4