SAVITA GAJANAN BANDREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. THE SECRETARY , SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SPORTS DEPARTMENT AND ORS

2026:BHC-KOL:9531-DB

                                                                      42-WP-17944-2024(C).doc


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

                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 17944 OF 2024

               Savita Gajanan Bandre                                      ...Petitioner
                         Versus
               The State of Maharashtra and Others                        ...Respondents

                                               ——————
               Mr. Prashant Bhavake, for the Petitioner.
               Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State.
                                               ——————
                                                  Coram :    Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                                             Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                                  Date     : October 01, 2026.
               P. C. :

               1.        By this Petition, the order dated 16 th November, 2022, passed by

               Respondent No. 5 – Education Officer, rejecting the Petitioner's

               proposal seeking appointment to the post of Shikshan Sevak, has been

               impugned.

               2.        The facts, as set out in the Petition, are that the Petitioner

               belongs to Hindu-Mahar caste, which is recognized as Scheduled Caste,

               and possesses the academic qualifications of B.A., B.Ed. The Respondent

               No.7 – School is run by Respondent No. 6 – Educational Institution and

               by reason of promotion of an Assistant Teacher, Shri R. G. Deshmane, to

               the post of Superintendent, a vacancy in the post of Shikshan Sevak was




               Jamadar - SL                       1 of 8
                                                    42-WP-17944-2024(C).doc


created and as per the roster, the said vacancy was required to be filled

up from the candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste category. It is

pleaded that before proceeding to fill up the vacancy in the last week of

January 2014, the representative of Respondent No.6 – Educational

Institution approached the office of Respondent No.5 to ascertain

whether any suitable candidates were available for the post of Shikshan

Sevak. However, no suitable surplus teacher was available for

absorption on the said proposed vacancy. The Respondent No.6

published an advertisement in a daily newspaper on 16 th January, 2014,

for recruitment to the post of Shikshan Sevak from the Scheduled Caste

category. The Petitioner applied for the said post and was duly selected

with effect from 1st February, 2014.

3.      On 16th June, 2014, the Respondent No. 7 – School submitted a

proposal for individual approval to the appointment of the Petitioner to

the post of Shikshan Sevak. However, no decision was taken on the said

proposal. The Petitioner, therefore, filed Writ Petition No.9854 of 2023

before this Court, and by order dated 22nd August, 2022, the Petition

came to be disposed of, directing the Respondent No.5 to decide the

said proposal within six months.

4.      On 13th October, 2022, Respondent No. 7 – School resubmitted

fresh proposal, which came to be rejected by the impugned order.

Hence, the present Petition.


Jamadar - SL                       2 of 8
                                                                  42-WP-17944-2024(C).doc


5.       Mr. Bhavake, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, would

point out the impugned order and has taken this Court through each

and every ground of rejection of the proposal. He submits that reliance

is placed on the Government Resolution dated 2 nd May, 2012, which

imposes a ban on recruitment. He submits that in the case of Smt.

Munoli Rajashri Karabasappa Vs. State of Maharashtra Through

Secretary & Others1, this Court considered the said Government

Resolution and has excluded three categories from the ban and the

third category is where recruitment is made to fulfill the backlog of

reserved category candidates.

6.       He would submit that the other ground is about not taking prior

permission for issuance of advertisement and non-absorption of surplus

teachers. He points out the pleading in paragraph 3 of the Petition that

Respondent No.5 was approached to ascertain whether any suitable

candidates were available, and no suitable surplus teacher was available

for absorption. He submits that though the affidavit-in-reply has been

filed     by    Respondent         No.5,     the     said    pleading   has   remained

uncontroverted. He would submit that the third ground is as regards the

staffing pattern. He points out that the reason given is that for the

academic year 2013-2014, there were 44 sanctioned posts; however, 42

posts were filled, and in February 2014, 44 teachers were working. For

1    Writ Petition No. 8587 of 2016 dated 10th July, 2017.


Jamadar - SL                                3 of 8
                                                    42-WP-17944-2024(C).doc


the academic year 2014-2015, 39 posts were sanctioned and 42

employees were working. He submits that based on the same, the

Education Officer has held that for the year 2014-2015, as per the

staffing pattern, three sanctioned posts of teachers were reduced, and

despite thereof, 42 employees were found to be working, which is in

excess of the sanctioned posts. He points out that the staffing pattern

for the academic year 2013-2014 which shows the total aided

sanctioned posts as 44, and in 2014-2015, it shows the reduced

sanctioned aided posts as 39. He points out that the staffing pattern

was finalized in the year 2017. He submits that by reason of the staffing

pattern of 2014-2015, as the Petitioner was appointed for the academic

year 2013-2014, the Petitioner became surplus. He submits that the

Government Resolution dated 27th June, 2016 provides that in such

eventualities, the Government has taken a decision not to terminate

their services and for them to be absorbed with continuity of service. He

submits that in view thereof, the same cannot be said to be a ground for

rejection. He would submit that the other reason as regards the

submission of the roster is unsustainable, as the same was placed on

record.

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

would submit that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the

staffing pattern on which reliance has been placed by the Petitioner has


Jamadar - SL                    4 of 8
                                                    42-WP-17944-2024(C).doc


been verified. She would further submit that the Petitioner was

appointed for Hindi and History subjects with effect from 1 st February,

2014, and as per the Government Resolution of 2 nd May, 2012, the

appointment of a new Shikshan Sevak was prohibited. She would

further point out that the Education Officer has considered the staffing

pattern to hold that there is an excess staff of three employees, which

cannot be disputed. She submits that considering the reasons for

rejection, there is no warrant for interference.

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

9.      Though a specific pleading has been made in the Petition that

before filling up the post, Respondent No. 6 approached the office of

Respondent No. 5 – Education Officer to ascertain whether any suitable

candidates were available for the post of Shikshan Sevak, there is no

denial of the said pleading, nor is there any positive assertion in the

affidavit-in-reply of Respondent No. 5 about the availability of suitable

surplus teacher.

10.     In the absence of any positive assertion demonstrating that a

suitable surplus teacher was available at the relevant time, the rejection

on the ground of non-absorption of surplus teacher cannot be

sustained. The ban on the recruitment process imposed by the

Government Resolution of 2nd May, 2012 was considered in the decision

of Smt. Munoli Rajashri Karabasappa Vs. State of Maharashtra


Jamadar - SL                     5 of 8
                                                                  42-WP-17944-2024(C).doc


Through Secretary & Others (supra) which considered the decision in

the case of Sou. Revati Kusha Wagh and another v. The State of

Maharashtra and another2, taking a view that the ban would not be

applicable where the appointments are made so as to fulfill the backlog

of backward class candidates.

11.     The Petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste, and therefore, the

embargo on recruitment imposed by the Government Resolution dated

2nd May, 2012 would not apply.

12.     Insofar as the rejection on the ground of staffing pattern is

concerned, the Education Officer has opined that according to the

Sanch Manyata for the year 2013-2014 there were a total of 44

approved sanctioned posts, including 1 post of Principal, 1 post of Vice-

Principal, 2 posts of Supervisor, and 40 teachers, while 42 posts were

operational. It is further noted that as per the 2014-2015 Sanch

Manyata, 39 posts were approved, but total of 42 posts were

operational, and as per the attendance Register of June 2014, 44

employees were working, and therefore, there was an excess staff of

three employees in the said school.

13.     Mr. Bhavake has drawn attention of this Court to the Sanch

Manyata for the year 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. As per the Sanch

Manyata of 2013-2014, there were 44 approved sanctioned posts, which

2   Writ Petition No. 10580 of 2015 with 1145 of 2016, decided on 9th March, 2017.


Jamadar - SL                             6 of 8
                                                  42-WP-17944-2024(C).doc


came to be reduced to 39 for the academic year 2014-2015.

14.     The Petitioner was appointed on 16th June, 2014, and by the

Government Resolution, it was noted that by reason of fixing the

staffing pattern for the year 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, certain Shikshan

Sevaks would be considered surplus, and a decision was taken to absorb

such surplus Shikshan Sevaks who have been rendered surplus due to

the approval of the Sanch Manyata.

15.     The decision taken by the Government notes that the staffing

pattern has been approved in the year 2016 and the Shikshan Sevaks

who were appointed prior to the order of fixing staffing pattern and

they came to be rendered surplus, they should be given continuity of

service as full-time teachers and absorbed.

16.     The Government Resolution specifies that the decision applies

only to Shikshan Sevaks who have been rendered surplus by reason of

the Sanch Manyata for the year 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. It cannot be

disputed that the impugned order refers to the Sanch Manyatas which

have been placed on record, and therefore, the contention of learned

AGP that the Sanch Manyata relied upon by the Petitioner are not

verified is unacceptable. The impugned order itself makes a reference

to the Sanch Manyata for the year 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 and the

approved sanctioned posts, which correspond to the Sanch Manyata

relied upon by the Petitioner.


Jamadar - SL                     7 of 8
                                                      42-WP-17944-2024(C).doc


17.     Considering the Government Resolution dated 27 th June, 2016,

the Petitioner's proposal could not have been rejected on the basis of

the Petitioner being considered surplus due to the Sanch Manyata. The

Education Officer has not taken into consideration the Government

Resolution of 27th June, 2016.

18.     In light of the above discussion, the reasons set out in the

impugned order for rejecting the proposal submitted by the Petitioner

is clearly unsustainable. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 16 th

November, 2022 is hereby quashed and set aside.

19.     The Respondent No.5 is directed to grant approval to the

appointment of the Petitioner to the post of Shikshan Sevak with effect

from 1st February, 2014, and to grant approval to the appointment of

the Petitioner as permanent Assistant Teacher in the regular pay - scale

with effect from 1st February, 2017, within a period of four weeks.

20.     The Respondent No.4 to include the name of the Petitioner in the

Shalarth Pranali and issue the Shalarth ID within a period of two weeks

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

weeks.

21.     The Petition is allowed in the above terms.



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




Jamadar - SL                      8 of 8