Bombay High Court
JOSHANA DILIP PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that the approval of the petitioner’s appointment could not be cancelled as the alleged violations were unfounded and the approval, once lawfully granted, may be set aside only on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation.
Summary
Joshana Dilip Patil, a qualified assistant teacher, was appointed by Ranale Education Society following a 2017 advertisement and her appointment was approved on 7 January 2019 by the Deputy Director of Education. A trustee of the society complained that the appointment violated a 13 July 2017 order of the Joint Charity Commissioner under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act and that it was not processed through the Pavitra Portal, also alleging that the approval record was missing. The Deputy Director cancelled the approval on these grounds. The petitioner challenged the cancellation by filing a writ petition under Article 226. The High Court examined the Joint Charity Commissioner’s order, held that it did not prohibit recruitment, noted that the Pavitra Portal was not operational at the relevant time, and found the petitioner not responsible for the missing record. It further reiterated that an approval once lawfully granted can be set aside only on proof of fraud or misrepresentation, and therefore quashed the impugned order.
Issues considered
- Whether the appointment of the petitioner violated the directions of the Joint Charity Commissioner issued under Section 41A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950.
- Whether non‑use of the Pavitra Portal renders the appointment illegal.
- Whether the absence of a traceable approval record justifies cancellation of the appointment.
- Whether the approval of the appointment can be cancelled in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 — s. 41A
Subjects
- appointment
- education
- public trust
- Joint Charity Commissioner
- Pavitra Portal
- writ petition
- Article 226
- cancellation of approval
- due process
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:43176-DB
wp-1633-2023.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1633 of 2023
Joshana Dilip Patil
Age : 37 years, Occu : Service,
R/o : At Post Pathare, Tq. Sindkheda,
District : Dhule ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
School Education and Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2. The Director of Education,
(Secondary and Higher Secondary),
Directorate of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nashik Division, Nashik.
4. Ranale Education Society, Ranale
Tq. And District Nandurbar.
Through its Secretary/President
5. The Head Master,
N. K. Tamboli Secondary and Jr. College,
Tq. and District : Nandurbar
6. Shri Sharadbhai Narayanbhai Tamboli,
Age : 70 years, Occ.:Agriculturist
R/o : Bhramangalli, Near Ram Mandir,
Ranale, Tq and District : Nandurbar ...Respondents
…
Mr. V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Sneha Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 5
Mr. L. V. Sangit, Advocate for Respondent No.6
...
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI &
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
Narwade/Ajay
wp-1633-2023.odt
2
RESERVED ON : 24.08.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 23.09.2026
FINAL ORDER (Per Abasaheb D. Shinde J.) :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the
consent of parties the Writ Petition is heard finally at the
stage of admission.
2. By this Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has put forth the
following prayer :
B. By way of appropriate writ, order or directions in the
like nature, this Hon’ble High Court may kindly quash
and set aside the impugned order issued by the Deputy
Director of Education, Nashik Division, Nashik thereby
declaring that the approval granted to petitioner as
illegal and further directing the education officer to
submit proposal for cancellation of approval.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that she is duly
qualified for being appointed on the post of Assistant
Teacher. Since some of the teachers stood superannuated,
Respondent No.4 published an advertisement on
26.07.2017 for filling up the said vacancies. Accordingly,
she participated in the selection process pursuant to the
said advertisement on 13.08.2017. After finding her
eligible Respondent No.4 on 29.08.2017 appointed her on
the post of Assistant Teacher. On 02.06.2018, a proposal
Narwade/Ajay
wp-1633-2023.odt
3
was forwarded to Respondent No.3-Deputy Director of
Education, seeking approval to her appointment. On
07.01.2019, Respondent No.3 approved her services.
4. It is further case of the petitioner that Respondent
No.6, who claims to be one of the trustees, made a
complaint with Respondent No.3, inter alia, contending
that the appointments of teaching and non-teaching staff
made by Respondent No.4 were contrary to the directions
issued by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nashik, and
there are several illegalities committed while making the
said appointments. Respondent No.6 simultaneously,
approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.6303 of
2019, challenging the approval granted to the appointment
of the petitioner by making same allegations. By order
dated 06.06.2019, this Court disposed of the said Writ
Petition by permitting Respondent No.6 to pursue his
complaint filed before Respondent No.3. On the basis of
said complaint Respondent No.3 has passed the impugned
order, thereby holding the approval granted to the
appointment of the petitioner being illegal on the following
grounds:-
i. As per order dated 13.07.2017 passed by the Joint
Charity Commissioner, the appointment of the
Narwade/Ajay
wp-1633-2023.odt
4
petitioner is made without seeking prior permission;
ii. The appointment of the petitioner is not made
through the Pavitra Portal;
iii. The record pertaining to petitioner’s approval
order dated 07.01.2019 is not traceable, which creates
doubt about the said approval order.
5. The petitioner therefore, has challenged this order
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is duly qualified and has been appointed after
following due procedure of law to the post of Assistant
Teacher. He submits that due to dispute in the management
of Respondent No.4, Respondent No.6 mala fide made
complaint in respect of petitioner’s appointment and
approval. He further submits that it is a settled position of
law that the approval once granted, cannot be cancelled
unless the authority cancelling such approval has the
power or authority to do so. He, therefore, urged that the
impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
7. Per contra, learned AGP submits that the
appointment of the petitioner is de hors the directions of
Joint Charity Commissioner and, therefore, the same could
not have been approved. The approval granted to the
petitioner’s appointment itself is under a cloud, therefore,
Narwade/Ajay
wp-1633-2023.odt
5
Respondent No.3 was justified in cancelling the said
approval.
8. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.6 would submit
that the proceedings before the Joint Charity
Commissioner were filed at his behest. The Joint Charity
Commissioner by order dated 13.07.2017, restrained
Respondent No.4 from taking any policy decision including
the appointments of the teaching and non-teaching staff.
Since, Respondent No.4 flouted the said order and
appointed the petitioner as such, her appointment and
approval is illegal. He further submits that the appointment
of the petitioner is without following the due procedure of
law. He, therefore, urged to dismiss the Writ Petition.
9. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner,
learned AGP for Respondent/State and learned Counsel
appearing for Respondent No.6 at length and perused the
record.
10. As far as, first reason assigned in the impugned
order is concerned, indisputably, the Joint Charity
Commissioner, Nashik passed an order on 13.07.2017
under Section 41 A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act,
1950. The operative order passed by Joint Charity
Commissioner reads thus :-
Narwade/Ajay
wp-1633-2023.odt
6
:: ORDER ::
1. Both applications are partly allowed.
2. The Care Taker managing committee is permitted to
issue increment orders of teaching and non-teaching staff.
3. They are further permitted to issue transfer orders of
teaching and non-teaching staff who are due for transfer
but after submissions of the list of the proposed transfer
before this Authority.
4. The Care Taker managing committee is authorised to
operate the bank account with joint signatures of the
President and Headmaster only in respect of expenditure
pertaining the administration of school.
5. They are further permitted to fill the post of teacher as
per prescribed procedure and on fulfilment of directions of
Education Department.
6. Inform the concerned accordingly.
7. The original order be kept in Application No. 13 of 2016
and its copy be kept in Application No. 09 of 2017.”
11. Bare perusal of aforesaid order would show that
there was no prohibition for recruitment of teaching or non
teaching staff. On the contrary, Clause-5 of the aforesaid
order permitted Respondent No.4 to fill the post of teacher
as per prescribed procedure and on fulfillment of directions
of Education Department.
12. As regards second reason is concerned, this Court
has taken a consistent view that, the Pavitra Portal was not
in operation during the relevant period, therefore, non-
compliance with such requirement cannot be held against
the petitioner.
13. So far as third reason about non-availability of
record pertaining to grant of approval to the petitioner’s
appointment is concerned, we find that the petitioner
cannot be held responsible for the non-traceability of such
Narwade/Ajay
wp-1633-2023.odt
7
record.
14. We are of the view that the approval once granted
cannot be cancelled unless it is found that the same is
obtained by playing fraud or misrepresentation. Perusal of
record reveals that, the appointment of the petitioner is
made after following due procedure of law. We thus find
that Respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order on
the basis of complaint made by Respondent No.6, thereby
declaring the approval granted to the petitioner’s
appointment to be illegal and directing the Education
Officer to submit proposal for cancellation of approval.
15. In our considered view, the reasons assigned in the
impugned order are unsustainable and therefore, the
impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. In
view of the above discussion, we pass the following order :-
:: ORDER ::
i. Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B).
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (N. B. SURYAWANSHI, J. )
Narwade/Ajay
Checking your session…