Bombay High Court
SMT. ANJANA KUMAR AMBI AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY AND ORS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Government resolutions are prospective unless expressly made retrospective; therefore the Education Officer’s order rejecting the appointment is invalid and must be set aside.
Summary
Petitioner Uday Jagtap was appointed as a peon in a minority‑run school in August 2017. The school sought approval of the appointment from the Education Officer, who rejected it on 24 June 2022, relying on a Government Resolution dated 11 December 2020 that declared the post of non‑teaching staff such as peon to be lapsed. The petitioners contended that the resolution could not apply retrospectively to an appointment made before its issuance and that minority institutions are exempt from the Section 5 approval requirement of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977. The Court examined precedents on the prospective nature of statutes and resolutions, notably T.M.A. Pai Foundation, Secretary Malankara Syrian Catholic College, Jospin Maykal Dsouza, Dilip Mohan Desai and Suman Shriram Kakad, and held that the resolution was not retrospectively applicable. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed and the Education Officer was directed to grant approval to the appointment within eight weeks, and the writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Government Resolution dated 11 December 2020 is applicable retrospectively to an appointment made on 1 August 2017.
- Whether a minority‑run institute is exempt from the Section 5 approval requirement under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977.
- Whether the Education Officer’s refusal to grant approval is legally valid.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- minority institution
- appointment
- peon
- government resolution
- retrospective effect
- education officer
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act
- writ petition
- staffing pattern
Judgment
916-16167-2023-CWP=.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 16167 OF 2023
Digitally
signed by Smt. Anjana Kumar Ambi and Ors. … Petitioners
UDAY
UDAY SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI JAGTAP Versus
JAGTAP Date:
2026.04.09
20:40:23
+0530
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary and … Respondents
Ors.
………….
Mr. Prathamesh P. Magadum a/w Mr. Chetan G. Patil i/b Mr. Mandar C.
Bagkar for the Petitioners.
Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent - State.
………….
CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR &
PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 8th APRIL, 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Pravin S. Patil, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Mali,
learned A.G.P. for the Respondent – State.
2. In this petition, the Petitioner No.1 has approached before this
Court against the order of the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla
Parishad, Sangli, who has refused to grant approval to the appointment
of the Petitioner against the post of Peon, vide its order dated 24 th June
2022.
Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 6
916-16167-2023-CWP=.doc
3. In the present petition, it is undisputed fact that Petitioner No.2 is a
Minority Institute and runs Petitioner No.3 - School. As per the settled
principles of law, the Minority Institutes are exempted from absorption of
Teacher from non-Minority School and consequently the permission from
the Education Officer as required under Section 5 of the Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 is not
required in the matter.
4. As a consequence, Petitioner No.2 Management issued an
Advertisement for the vacant post to be filled in as per their choice.
Accordingly by following due procedure of law, the Petitioner was
appointed in the School against the post of ‘Peon’.
5. After the appointment of the Petitioner No.1 against the post of
Peon on 1st August 2017, the Petitioner No.3 has forwarded the proposal
to the Respondent – Education Officer for grant of approval on 4 th May
2022. In turn, Respondent – Education Officer by relying upon the
Government Resolution dated 11th December 2020 rejected the proposal
by recording the reason that the post of non-teaching staff, particularly
Peon is now lapsed and, therefore, approval cannot be granted.
Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 6
916-16167-2023-CWP=.doc
6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner made a submission before this
Court that the Government Resolution dated 11th December 2020 is not
applicable in the matter because appointment of Petitioner No.1 is of
dated 1st August 2017. As per settled position of law, unless it is
expressly mention, the Resolution cannot be made applicable
retrospectively in the matter.
7. Learned AGP strongly opposed the petition. According to him,
merely because the Petitioner – Institute is Minority Institute it cannot be
held that Policy framed by the State Government by Government
Resolution dated 11th December 2020 is not applicable in the matter. But
at the same time do not disputed the law laid down in case of T.M.A. Pai
Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka 1 and in the case of Secretary,
Malankara Syrian Catholic College Vs. T. Jose & Ors.2.
8. In light of submission made by both the parties, it would be
relevant to refer the judgment of the co-ordinate bench in the case of
Jospin Maykal Dsouza Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 3 wherein
considering the settled position of law observed in paragraph Nos. 10 and
11 as under :-
1 2002 (8) SCC 481
2 2007 (1) SCC 386
3 W.P. No. 8710 of 2024
Uday S. Jagtap 3 of 6
916-16167-2023-CWP=.doc
“10. The Education Officer then in the impugned order makes
a reference to the G.R.'s dated 28 th January 2019 and 11th
December 2020 to show that the appointment of the Petitioner
is contrary to the conditions mentioned in the said G.R.'s. It is
significant to note that the Petitioner was appointed in the year
2017, when the G.R.'s of 28th January 2019 and 11th
December 2020 were not in force. The aforesaid G.R.'s in our
opinion cannot have retrospective applicability.
11. We are supported in our view by the decision of this Court
in the case of Dilip Mohan Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra &
Ors. 2021 (3) Mah.L.J. 759. In the said decision authored by
His Lordship (Shri Madhav J. Jamdar, J.) in para Nos. 16 to 18
has observed thus:
"16. Mr. Thorat has also relied on G.R. dated 28 th
January, 2019. In fact, the said G.R. states that all the
decisions of the State of Maharashtra regarding
staffing pattern taken earlier are cancelled and the
staffing pattern is to be implemented as set out in the
said G.R. In so far as staffing pattern of class-IV
employees are concerned, it is specifically mentioned
that new separate G.R. will be issued. In the affidavit
in reply it is specifically stated that Government has
not decided the staffing pattern, recruitment pattern
about the post of peon. Be that as it may, all these
Government Resolutions which are subsequent to the
appointment of Petitioner will not apply to the
Petitioner's case and therefore, it can not be said that
approval granted to his appointment as peon by orders
dated 21st January, 2019 and 25th February, 2019
issued by Respondent No.2-Education Officer
(Secondary) are illegal.
17. Mr. Patil rightly relied on the judgment of this
Court in the matter of Suman Shriram Kakad (supra).
In the said case also the question was whether the
Government Resolution dated 5th August, 2010 would
apply with retrospective effect. This Court has held
Uday S. Jagtap 4 of 6
916-16167-2023-CWP=.doc
that it is a cardinal principle of construction of statute
that every statue is prima facie prospective unless it is
expressly or by necessary implication made to have
retrospective operation. It is further held that unless
there are words in the statute sufficient to show the
intention of the legislature to affect existing rights, it is
deemed to be prospective. As a logical corollary of
general rule, retrospective operation is not taken to be
in-tended unless that intention was manifested by
express words or necessary implication. Another
principle flowing from presumption against
retrospectivity is that one does not expect rights
conferred by the statute to be destroyed by events
which took place before it was passed.
18. In the present case, not only that the
Government Resolutions on which Mr. Thorat has
heavily relied are subsequent to the appointment of
Petitioner but, in fact, the said Government Resolutions
clearly contemplates/specifies that either they are
applicable from the date of Government Resolution or
the date specifically mentioned therein."
9. In the present case, admittedly only because of the Government
Resolution dated 11th December 2020, the proposal of the Petitioner has
been rejected. In our considered opinion, the case of the Petitioner is
covered by the judgment of this Court dated 19 th November 2025 passed
in Writ Petition No.8710 of 2024 in case of Jospin Maykal Dsouza
(supra).
10. Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 24th June 2022 passed by
Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli is hereby quashed
Uday S. Jagtap 5 of 6
916-16167-2023-CWP=.doc
and set aside. The Education Officer is hereby directed to grant approval
to the appointment of the Petitioner No.1 as per the proposal dated 4 th
May 2022 with all consequential benefits within a period of eight weeks
from the date of production of this order.
11. It is further made clear that after granting approval to the
appointment of the Petitioner, the Education Officer should take
necessary steps to forward the proposal of the Petitioner to the Deputy
Director of Education to include the name of the Petitioner in the
Shalarth Pranali. The Deputy Director of Education then include the
name of the Petitioner in the Shalarth Pranali and provide Shalarth I.D.
within the stipulated period as laid down under the Government
Resolution dated 10th June 2022.
12. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms of above direction.
No order as to costs.
[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. ] [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Uday S. Jagtap 6 of 6
Checking your session…