BHAU RADHAKRISHNA GHADIversusTHE STATE OF MAHA. THR. SEC. SCHOOL EDUC. AND SPROTS AND ORS

                                                                24-WP-1595-2024.doc



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

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 1595 OF 2024

Bhau Radhakrishna Ghadi                               ...Petitioner
          Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others                   ...Respondents

                                ——————
Mr. Prashant Bhavake with Mr. Utkarsh Desai, Adv. Shivaa Navanne & Ms. Durva
Jadhav, for the Petitioner.
Mr. V. G. Badgujar, AGP, for the Respondents-State.
                                ——————
                                  Coram :     Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                              Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                  Date      : October 07, 2026.
P. C. :

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

dated 11th October 2022, rejecting the proposal submitted seeking

approval for the appointment of the Petitioner to the post of Peon in

the Respondent No. 7-Secondary School.

2.        The facts, as borne out from the petition, are that the post of

Peon became vacant in the said Respondent No.7-school by reason of

retirement on 1st September 2013. As per the roster, the said post was

required to be illed from the open category. Applications dated 19 th

June 2013, 3rd September 2013 and 14th October 2013 were iled with

Respondent No.5-Education Oicer requesting to provide details of



Gaikwad RD                         1 of 7
                                                                                  24-WP-1595-2024.doc



suitable candidates for absorption in the said post or in the alternative,

for permission to issue an advertisement for recruitment to the said

post. Despite receipt of the applications, there was no response and

the       Respondent              No.6-Educational                Institution   published        an

advertisement on 3rd March 2014. The Petitioner responded to the

advertisement and came to be selected and was appointed with efect

from 2nd May 2014.

3.       On 2nd June 2014, the proposal came to be submitted to

Respondent No.5-Education Oicer, which came to be decided by the

impugned order dated 11th October 2022, rejecting the said proposal.

Hence, the present petition.

4.       Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has taken this Court

through the grounds for rejection and would submit that insofar as the

rejection on the ground that no permission was taken for the issuance

of the advertisement is concerned, the same is without substance

inasmuch as three applications were iled with Respondent No.5-

Education Oicer. Drawing support from the decision of this Court in

the case of Gramvikas Shikshan Mandal vs. State of Maharashtra,1 he

would submit that this Court has held that where there is no response

to the applications, the Management is left with no alternative, but to

advertise for suitable candidate to ill up the vacancy and the

1    Writ Petition (St.) No.4493 of 2022, dtd. 26th April 2023.


Gaikwad RD                                       2 of 7
                                                                   24-WP-1595-2024.doc



Management cannot be expected to leave the post vacant. He would

submit that in view of the said decision, the reason is unsustainable.

5.       He would further point out that the ground at Sr. No.2 of the

impugned order is vague and does not give speciic details about which

procedure was not followed as contemplated by the Government

Resolution dated 6th February 2012. He would submit that the roster

was duly veriied and forms part of page 58 of the petition. He would

submit that the reasons set out at Sr. Nos.4, 5 and 6 are covered by the

decision of this Court in the case of Vikas Shikshan Mandal v. State of

Maharashtra,2 and that the document at page number 66, which is the

staing pattern for the year 2012–2013 would indicate that two posts

of Peon were vacant.

6.       Per contra, learned AGP would support the impugned order. He

submits that without any permission from the Education Oicer, it was

not open for the Management to advertise the post. He submits that

any appointment made pursuant to such advertisement is not in

accordance with the procedure prescribed in the applicable Government

Resolutions. He would submits that the Government Resolution of 6 th

February 2012 prescribes the procedure to be followed and the

Education Oicer has come to a speciic inding that the said procedure

has not been followed.                 He would further submit that the staing

2    Writ Petition No.6812 of 2024, dtd. 2nd February 2026.


Gaikwad RD                                     3 of 7
                                                            24-WP-1595-2024.doc



pattern demonstrated that there was no sanctioned post of Peon and

hence the appointment of the Petitioner has not been approved rightly

by the Education Oicer.

7.      We have considered the submissions and perused the petition.

8.      The Petitioner has placed on record the applications, which were

iled by the Management with the Education Oicer on 19 th June 2013,

3rd September 2013 and 14th October 2013 seeking information about

the surplus candidates and if there is no surplus candidate, then to give

permission for advertisement. The applications speciically state that by

virtue of the resignation of one peon, the post has become vacant on 2 nd

May 2013 and that the other peon has retired on 1 st September 2013.

Though three applications were iled with the Education Oicer, there

was no response and, therefore, the same cannot now constitute a

ground for denying the approval to the appointment of the Petitioner.

9.      The decision in the case of Gramvikas Shikshan Mandal (supra)

squarely applies to the facts of the present case, wherein the Division

Bench has held that the Management cannot be expected to leave the

post vacant for such time that the State decides to take cognizance of

the request of the Management and it is logical on part of the

Management to presume the unavailability of surplus candidates in view

of the failure of the Education Oicer.

10.     Insofar as the ground at Sr. No.2 of the impugned order is


Gaikwad RD                       4 of 7
                                                             24-WP-1595-2024.doc



concerned, the same is as vague as can be.            There is no speciic

procedure set out which, according to the Education Oicer, has not

been followed while appointing the Petitioner. The material on record

would indicate that advertisement was published in a widely circulated

newspaper, applications were invited, and, thereafter, a resolution has

been passed and the appointment order has been issued to the

Petitioner. It is not demonstrated from the impugned order as to which

procedure as prescribed in the Government Resolution dated 6 th

February 2012 has not been followed by the management.

11.     Insofar as the ground at Sr. No.3 is concerned, the applications

which were iled in the year 2013 with the Education Oicer itself note

that as per the Rules, the roster has been veriied.

12.     Insofar as the ground that as per the staing pattern, the post of

Peon is not sanctioned, a perusal of page 66 of the petition would

indicate that for the academic year 2012–13, there were two posts of

Peon, which were sanctioned. The appointment of the Petitioner is to

the sanctioned post of Peon, which became vacant by reason of the

retirement of one of the peons.

13.     The other reasons given by the Education Oicer to reject the

proposal are as regards the Government Resolutions of 12 th February

2015 and 11th December 2020. The said Government Resolutions were

subject matter in the case of Vikas Shikshan Mandal (supra) where the


Gaikwad RD                        5 of 7
                                                              24-WP-1595-2024.doc



Division Bench has considered the Government Resolutions of 23 rd

October 2013 as well as the Government Resolution of 2015 and held in

paragraph 12.14

        12.14        We are of considered view to hold that until the
        new staing patters were introduced in 2019 and 2020, the
        last staing policy introduced vide Government Resolution
        dated 25.11.2005 was holding ield. Thus, the conundrum
        created by the various Government Resolutions from 2013 to
        2019 & 2020 (IV category) over the staing pattern and the
        fate of the appointments made in the mean period, stands
        solved. Staing pattern sought to be introduced by
        Government Resolution of 2013 lost its efect ab initio in view
        of Government Resolution of 2015. Meaning thereby, the
        earlier staing pattern of 2005 stood superseded by the
        staing pattern of 2019 (for all categories excluding Class IV)
        and by the staing pattern of 2020 (for Class IV category),
        both operational prospectively from their respective dates of
        issuance.”
14.     From the above discussion, it is evident that the reasons which are

given by the Education Oicer to reject the proposal for approval are

clearly unsustainable. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 11 th

October 2022 is hereby quashed and set aside.

15.     The Education Oicer is directed to grant approval to the

appointment of the Petitioner to the post of Peon within a period of

four weeks from today.

16.     The Respondent No. 2-Deputy Director to include the name of the


Gaikwad RD                         6 of 7
                                                                                     24-WP-1595-2024.doc



                        Petitioner in the Shalarth Pranali and allot Shalarth ID to the Petitioner

                        within a period of three weeks thereafter and to release the grant-in-aid

                        salary within a further period of two weeks.

                        17.     The petition is allowed in above terms.



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


           Digitally
           signed by
           RAJU
RAJU       DATTATRAYA
DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD    Date:
           2026.10.07
           19:58:58
           +0530




                        Gaikwad RD                        7 of 7