Bombay High Court
SHILPA DIPAK BHOLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that the pending proposal must be forwarded to the Commissioner of Education, who shall decide it within the time‑frames stipulated by the State’s undertaking.
Summary
The petitioner, Shilpa Dipak Bhole, sought conversion of her unaided teaching post to an aided post on a 100 % grant‑in‑aid basis. The Education Officer had approved only a 20 % grant‑in‑aid and the petitioner filed a writ petition alleging violation of the earlier sanction. The State, through its Additional General Counsel, relied on a Government Notification dated 13‑Nov‑2025 which transferred authority for such appointments to the Commissioner of Education and indicated a procedural timeline. The Court accepted the State’s undertaking that the pending proposal would be forwarded to the Commissioner within two weeks and decided within four weeks thereafter. Accordingly, the Court directed the Commissioner to decide the petitioner's proposal as per the undertaking and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a 100% grant‑in‑aid appointment as originally sanctioned.
- Whether the procedural requirements of the Government Notification dated 13‑Nov‑2025 compel the Education Officer to forward the proposal to the Commissioner of Education for decision.
Subjects
- grant-in-aid
- appointment conversion
- education law
- writ petition
- administrative procedure
- government notification
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:12128-DB
939-WP-1789-26.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
939 WRIT PETITION NO. 1789 OF 2026
Shilpa Dipak Bhole
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And
......
Mr. Ramesh I. Wakade, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. V.M. Kagne, GP for Respondents No.1 to 5
......
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
DATE : 18 MARCH, 2026
PER COURT [Per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.] : -
1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner. He submits that,
the earlier proposal of the Petitioner for appointment from unaided to
aided post on 100% grant-in-aid basis was sanctioned by the Education
Officer, but instead of 100% grant-in-aid, it was only for 20% grant-in-
aid. He, therefore, submits that a fresh proposal has been submitted to
sanction the proposal on 100% grant-in-aid basis. The said proposal, as
on date, is pending before the Education Officer – Respondent No. 4.
2. The learned AGP appearing for the State submits that, in
accordance with the Government Notification dated 13.11.2025,
proposals for appointment from unaided to aided post are now to be
decided by the Commissioner of Education. He further submits that the
Education Officer – Respondent No. 4 will forward the pending proposal
939-WP-1789-26.odt
{2}
of the Petitioner to the Commissioner of Education within a period of
two (2) weeks from today, and the Commissioner of Education, after
receiving the proposal, will decide the said proposal within a period of
four (4) weeks thereafter.
3. The statement made by the learned AGP is accepted as an
undertaking to this Court. The Commissioner of Education is directed to
decide the proposal of the Petitioner as stated by the AGP by way of an
undertaking to this Court.
4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
S P Rane
Checking your session…