SMITA KAMALESH BAPATversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY AND ORS

2026:BHC-KOL:8781-DB

                                                                             25-WP-16464-2024.doc


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


                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 16464 OF 2024


               Smita Kamalesh Bapat                                          ...Petitioner
                         Versus
               The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Ors ...Respondents


                                                ——————
               Ms. Surekha Kamble i/b Mr. Arvind Ambetkar, for the Petitioner.
               Mr. R.P.Kadam, “B” Panel counsel, for the Respondent-State.
                                                ——————
                                                  Coram :     SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
                                                              NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
                                                  Date      : SEPTEMBER 10, 2026

               P. C. :

               1.        By the present Petition, the challenge is to the order dated 31 st

               May, 2024 passed by the Education Officer granting approval to the

               appointment of the Petitioner on the post of Shikshan Sevak on

               honorarium by applying Clause 8 of the Government Resolution (“GR”)

               dated 10th June, 2005.

               2.        The facts as stated in the Petition are that the Petitioner was

               appointed as a junior clerk in the Respondent No. 5 school with effect

               from 17th December, 2007. The Petitioner successfully completed the

               probation period of two years, and subsequently, also acquired



               Arya Chavan                         1 of 5
                                                                      25-WP-16464-2024.doc


educational qualification of Bachelor of Arts, and thereafter, Bachelor

of Education from Shreemati Nathibai Damodar Thackersey University,

Mumbai in April/May 2011, which qualified her for being appointed as

trained graduate teacher under the Maharashtra Employees of Private

Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. In the year 2015, the

Petitioner also passed the State Teachers Eligibility Test and became

qualified for the post of assitant teacher for the classes 6 to 8

standards. Due to retirement of assistant teacher in the year 2023, the

Petitioner came to be appointed on 6th October, 2023 by upgradation on

the said vacant post, and in light of the provisions of GR dated 10 th June,

2005, on monthly honorarium of Rs. 16,000/-. Upon application

submitted for seeking approval, instead of granting a approval as

assistant teacher, approval was granted as Shikshan Sevak from 6 th

October, 2023 as per Clause 8 of the GR dated 10 th June, 2005. Hence,

the present Petition.

3.       Learned counsel for the Petitioner has taken this Court through

the material on record in order to demonstrate the upgradation of the

Petitioner to the post of assistant teacher on 6 th October 2023. She

would further point out Clause 8 of the GR dated 10 th June, 2005 and

also the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case

of Shri Suhas S/o Rangraoji More vs State of Maharashtra and Others 1,

1    WP No. 7706 of 2022 decided on 21/12/2023 by Nagpur High Court


Arya Chavan                                 2 of 5
                                                        25-WP-16464-2024.doc


to contend that Clause 8 of the GR dated 10 th June, 2005 was held to be

arbitrary and discriminatory. She would submit that in view thereof, the

Petitioner is entitled to approval on the post of assistant teacher with

the applicable pay scale.

4.      Per contra, learned AGP would support the impugned order and

would contend that the initial appointment is required to be on the post

of Shikshan Sevak, and it is only after the period of three years, that the

approval can be granted to the post of assistant teacher. He relies upon

the GR dated 10th June, 2005.

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

6.      The facts are mostly undisputed as regards the appointment of

the Petitioner and her qualifications to be appointed as an assistant

teacher. It is by reason of the post of assistant teacher becoming vacant

in the year 2023, that the Petitioner came to be upgraded from a non-

teaching post to teaching post, as directed by GR dated 10 th June, 2005.

The impediment is that the approval has been granted as Shikshan

Sevak by reason of which the Petitioner will be paid honorarium instead

of regular pay scale. The approval by the Education Officer was in view

of Clause 8 of the GR dated 10th June, 2005. The said Clause 8 of the GR

dated 10th June, 2005 was under consideration of this Court in the case

of Shri Suhas S/o Rangraoji More vs State of Maharashtra and Others

(supra). The Hon'ble Division Bench noted in that case that the


Arya Chavan                      3 of 5
                                                       25-WP-16464-2024.doc


Petitioner had acquired the requisite qualifications to be appointed as

full-time training teacher and the question which was considered by the

Hon'ble Division Bench is whether the promotion should be as Shikshan

Sevak on honorarium. Noting Clause 8 of the GR dated 10 th June, 2005,

the Hon'ble Division Bench held Clause 8 of GR of 2005, which stipulates

promotion of non-teaching staff as Shikshan Sevak on payment of

honorarium arbitrary and discriminatory on the principle of equal pay

equal work and directed the appointment as assistant teacher of the

Petitioner therein with prescribed pay scale at par with pay scale of

other similarly placed promotees. It is not demonstrated that the said

order was challenged by the State Government and has therefore

attained finality.

7.      We are respectfully bound by the said decision. Applying the law

laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shri

Suhas S/o Rangraoji More vs State of Maharashtra and Others (supra),

the impugned order based on Clause 8 of the GR dated 10 th June, 2005

is clearly unsustainable and is quashed and set aside. The Education

Officer is directed to grant approval to the appointment of the

Petitioner to the post of assistant teacher with effect from 6 th October,

2023 with prescribed pay scale as applicable to the other similarly

placed assistant teachers within a period of three weeks from today.

The Petition is allowed in the above terms.


Arya Chavan                      4 of 5
                                                      25-WP-16464-2024.doc


8.      Applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand

disposed of.




 [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]                    [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]




Arya Chavan                      5 of 5