Bombay High Court
SHEKHAR SUBHASH SALVIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. THE SEC. SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SPORTS DEPT AND ORS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court set aside the Education Officer’s order for rejecting the proposal without a chance to remedy deficiencies and remitted the matter for fresh consideration in light of the Vikas Shikshan Mandal judgment.
Summary
Shekhar Subhash Salvi, who was selected as a Peon in a Maharashtra government‑aided school in 2014, filed a writ petition challenging the Education Officer’s order dated 30 July 2024 that rejected his appointment proposal on several grounds. The petitioner argued that the officer’s order listed deficiencies without giving the school management an opportunity to remedy them and that the objection based on the 2013 staffing (staing) pattern was misplaced, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Vikas Shikshan Mandal (2026) which held that the 2005 pattern remained applicable until the new Class IV pattern took effect on 11 December 2020. The State contended that the proposal was untimely and that the 2020 resolution abolishing Class IV posts barred the appointment. The Court held that the rejection was procedurally defective for not allowing a chance to cure the deficiencies and that the Vikas Shikshan Mandal judgment correctly limits the applicability of the 2020 pattern. Consequently, the order was set aside, the proposal remitted to the Education Officer for fresh consideration, and the school was directed to address the listed deficiencies within four weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether the Education Officer’s rejection of the appointment proposal without affording the management an opportunity to cure the identified deficiencies violates principles of natural justice.
- Whether the 2020 Government Resolution abolishing Class IV posts applies retrospectively to appointments made in 2014, or whether the 2005 staing pattern remains controlling until the new pattern’s prospective commencement.
- Whether the petitioner's delayed submission of the proposal (after ten years) bars approval under the applicable staffing rules.
Subjects
- appointment
- peon
- class IV staff
- staing pattern
- government resolution
- procedural fairness
- natural justice
- writ petition
- education officer
- Maharashtra
Judgment
104-WP-18388-2024.doc
Digitally signed
by HARISH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
HARISH VITHAL
VITHAL CHAUDHARI
CHAUDHARI Date:
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
2026.09.29
14:23:04 +0530 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 18388 OF 2024
Shekhar Subhash Salvi ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Throu. The Sec. School ...Respondents
Education And Sports Dept And Others
——————
Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. P. Vanarase, AGP for the Respondent-State.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : September 28, 2026.
P. C. :
1. By the present petition, the order of the Education Oicer dated
30th July, 2024, rejecting the proposal submitted seeking approval of
the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Peon, is impugned.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
post of Peon became vacant in the Respondent No. 7 school due to the
termination of one S.K. Kamble. An advertisement was issued on 2 nd
June, 2014, and pursuant to interviews conducted, the petitioner was
selected on 15th June, 2014. He submits that the proposal was
submitted on 20th June, 2024. He submits that by the impugned order,
certain deiciencies were noted; however, no opportunity was given to
Harish 1 of 6
104-WP-18388-2024.doc
the management to comply with the said deiciencies. He submits that
insofar as the deiciencies at Serial Nos. 1 to 7 of the impugned order
are concerned, an explanation can be submitted in that regard. He
submits that insofar as the deiciency at Serial No. 8 is concerned, the
same is settled by the decision of this Court in the case of Vikas Shikshan
Mandal And Others v. The State of Maharashtra And Others (Writ Petition
No. 6812 of 2024, decided on 2nd February, 2026). He submits that in view
of the said decision, the staing pattern which would be applicable
would be of the year 2005, and that the new staing pattern for Class
IV employees was operational only with efect from 11 th December,
2020.
3. Learned AGP would submit that the petitioner claims to have
been appointed in the year 2014 and has submitted the proposal in the
year 2024. He would further point out that by Government Resolutions,
timelines and guidelines as regards the absorption of surplus non-
teaching staf due to the new staing pattern prescribed on 28th
January, 2019, are required to be followed. He would further submit
that the State Government introduced a new staing pattern for non-
teaching staf of Class IV on 11 th December, 2020, in which the Class IV
posts came to be abolished and a policy decision was taken of
sanctioning a consolidated amount as 'Shipai Bhatta' to private aided
schools as per the ratio of total enrollment of students. He submits that
Harish 2 of 6
104-WP-18388-2024.doc
in view thereof, there is no warrant for interference with the impugned
order.
4. Insofar as the deiciencies which are noted at Serial Nos. 1 to 7 are
concerned, it is for the management to submit an explanation to the
satisfaction of the Education Oicer as regards the deiciencies noted in
the impugned order. Insofar as the deiciency at Serial No. 8 is
concerned, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vikas Shikshan
Mandal (supra), considered the changes in the staing pattern in the
private school and the efect of the Government Resolutions dated 23 rd
October, 2013, 12th February, 2015, 28th January, 2019, and 12th
December, 2020, and the fate of the appointments made during the
transition of the policies on staing pattern. The Hon'ble Division Bench
considered the Government Resolutions as regards the changes in the
staing pattern and held in Paragraphs 12.14 and 12.15 as Under:
"12.14 We are of considered view to hold that until the new
staing patters were introduced in 2019 and 2020, the last
staing policy introduced vide Government Resolution dated
25.11.2005 was holding ield. Thus, the conundrum created by
the various Government Resolutions from 2013 to 2019 &
2020 (IV category) over the staing pattern and the fate of
the appointments made in the mean period, stands solved.
Staing pattern sought to be introduced by Government
Resolution of 2013 lost its efect ab initio in view of
Government Resolution of 2015. Meaning thereby, the earlier
Harish 3 of 6
104-WP-18388-2024.doc
staing pattern of 2005 stood superseded by the staing
pattern of 2019 (for all categories excluding Class IV) and by
the staing pattern of 2020 (for Class IV category), both
operational prospectively from their respective dates of
issuance.
12.15. The new staing pattern for Class IV employees is
operational only w.e.f. 11.12.2020. It is trite law that a
Government Resolution, a statute, an amendment is not
retrospectively applicable unless expressly provided. Hence we
reject the contention of the learned Assistant Government
Pleader based on the objection recorded by the Education
Oicer that Government Resolution of 2013 i.e. dated
23.10.2013 disqualiies the proposal for approval to the
appointment of Petitioner No.3 which is made on
31.08.2014."
5. The decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court is
suicient answer to the reason at Sr. No. 8 stated by the Education
Oicer for rejecting the proposal.
6. As there was no opportunity given to the management to comply
with the deiciencies mentioned at Serial Nos. 1 to 7, and the deiciency
cited at Serial No. 8 is covered by the decision in the case of Vikas
Shikshan Mandal (supra), we are of the opinion that the impugned order,
to the extent that it rejects the proposal without giving an opportunity
to the management to cure the deiciencies, is liable to be set aside.
7. The proposal is remitted to the ile of the Education Oicer, and
Harish 4 of 6
104-WP-18388-2024.doc
the management is directed to comply with the deiciencies cited in the
proposal. The Education Oicer to take into consideration the decision
in Vikas Shikshan Mandal (supra), which answers the deiciency cited at
Serial No. 8. Insofar as the other deiciencies are concerned, the
Education Oicer to consider the explanation to be submitted by the
management and take a decision afresh. It is made clear that the
Education Oicer shall take the decision on its own merits and in
accordance with law, uninluenced by the remittance of the proposal by
this Court. It is only in the event that the proposal satisies the statutory
rules and regulations that necessary approval be granted. The Education
Oicer to also take note of the fact that the petitioner claims to have
been appointed in the year 2014 and has submitted the proposal after a
period of 10 years. Even in the event that approval is granted, the grant-
in-aid salary is to be released only from the date of submission of the
proposal.
8. The management is directed to comply with the deiciencies at
Serial Nos. 1 to 7 within a period of four weeks. After receiving the
necessary compliance, the Education Oicer to consider the proposal
afresh, and particularly in light of the observations made in the present
order, and decide the same expeditiously, and in any event, within a
period of four weeks thereafter. In the event the proposal is approved,
the Deputy Director of Education to include the name of the petitioner
Harish 5 of 6
104-WP-18388-2024.doc
in the Shalarth Pranali and issue the Shalarth ID within a period of three
weeks thereafter.
9. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Harish 6 of 6
Checking your session…