Bombay High Court

ROHIT SAGUN PASTE AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. THE SEC. SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SPORTS DEPT AND ORS

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court held that the impugned order rejecting the appointment proposal was unsustainable and directed approval of the petitioners' appointments.

Summary

The petitioners were appointed as peons in a Maharashtra school, but the Education Officer rejected the approval proposal despite the management having complied with previously identified deficiencies. The petitioners argued that the officer cited fresh deficiencies, some of which were vague or unrelated to statutory requirements, such as the need to publish advertisements in two specific newspapers and the applicability of standing‑pattern resolutions. The State contended that the advertisement did not meet the requirement of being in two leading newspapers and that a No‑Objection Certificate for recruitment was lacking. The Court examined each deficiency, finding that the earlier compliance satisfied the requirements, that the advertisement requirement could not be a sole ground for rejection, and that the standing‑pattern objections were resolved by prior case law. Consequently, the Court held the impugned order unsustainable and directed the Education Officer to approve the appointments.

Issues considered

Whether the Education Officer was justified in rejecting the appointment proposal on the basis of alleged deficiencies.
Whether publication of the advertisement in two leading newspapers is a mandatory condition under the applicable government resolutions.
Whether a No‑Objection Certificate for recruitment was required for the appointment of peons under the MEPS Act.
Whether the standing‑pattern resolutions cited as deficiencies were applicable to appointments made in 2016.
Whether the cited deficiencies constitute grounds for outright rejection or merely irregularities.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 — s. 5

Subjects

appointment
deficiency
advertisement
standing pattern
government resolution
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act
writ petition
education officer
compliance
recruitment

Judgment

912-WP-18462-2024.doc

HARISH
Digitally signed
by HARISH
VITHAL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
VITHAL CHAUDHARI
CHAUDHARI Date:
2026.10.01
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
10:53:24 +0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 18462 OF 2024

Rohit Sagun Paste And Another ...Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Throu. The Sec. School ...Respondents
Education And Sports Dept And Others

——————
Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioners.
Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent-State.
——————

Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : September 30, 2026.

P. C. :

1. The order dated 21st October, 2022 passed by respondent No. 5,

Education Oicer, rejecting the proposal seeking approval to the

appointment of the petitioners to the post of Peon has been impugned

in present petition.

2. The facts, as borne out from the petition, are that due to

retirement of four peons by end of September 2012 out of ive

sanctioned posts, the Headmaster of petitioner No. 3 school submitted

applications on 12th December, 2013 and 5th October, 2015 seeking

permission for issuing advertisement. There was no response by the

Harish 1 of 8
912-WP-18462-2024.doc

respondent No. 5, Education Oicer, and on 4th April, 2016,

advertisement was published in the daily newspaper Tarun Bharat.

Subsequently, interviews were conducted, and on 12 th April, 2016, the

school committee passed a resolution selecting petitioner No. 1, and

the appointment was granted on 13th April, 2016. On 5th August, 2016,

the proposal was forwarded to respondent No. 5 for approval, which

was not decided, and a fresh proposal was submitted on 11 th October,

2019. On 20th March, 2022, the deiciencies were communicated by

respondent No. 5, which were complied with vide report dated 4 th

August, 2022. Despite compliance with the deiciencies, the proposal

came to be rejected on 21st October, 2022. Hence, the present petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that

though earlier the deiciencies had been complied with, fresh

deiciencies were cited while rejecting the proposal. He has taken this

Court through the deiciencies cited and would point out that in so far

as deiciency Nos. 1, 3, and 4 are concerned, the same were complied

with, and that deiciency No. 3 is completely vague as it does not specify

which procedure had not been followed. He would further point out

that deiciency No. 6, as regards the non-publishing of the

advertisement in two newspapers, cannot be cited as a reason for

rejection of the proposal as the advertisement was published in a widely

circulating newspaper and the MEPS Act and Rules do not prescribe any

Harish 2 of 8
912-WP-18462-2024.doc

particular newspapers in which the advertisement should be published.

He would draw support from the decision in the case of Gramvikas

Shikshan Mandal And Others v. State of Maharashtra And Others; [dated

26th April, 2023 in WP-ST No.4493 of 2022] , annexed at page 110 of the

petition, in order to contend that in the event permission was sought

for issuance of an advertisement which was not responded, the

management had no alternative but to advertise for suitable candidates

to ill up the vacancy. He would submit that in so far as deiciency Nos. 7

and 8 are concerned, the same refer to ban enforced by resolutions of

2010 and 2011. He submits that the ban was for a period of one year,

which was extended for one year by the Government Resolution of 16 th

July, 2011, and the petitioner's appointment is of the year 2016. He

would further submit that in so far as the issue of the staing pattern is

concerned, which is also cited as deiciency, the decision in the case of

Vikas Shikshan Mandal And Others v. The State of Maharashtra And

Others (Writ Petition No. 6812 of 2024, decided on 2 nd February, 2026)

squarely covers the said issue. He submits that while rejecting the

proposal, further deiciencies were cited at serial Nos. 11 to 14, and

submits a compilation of documents in order to contend that all these

deiciencies were already complied with and all documents have been

submitted.

4. Learned AGP opposed the petition and would submit that by the

Harish 3 of 8
912-WP-18462-2024.doc

Government Resolution of 6th February, 2012, the advertisement was

required to be published in two leading newspapers, and in the present

case, the advertisement is published in a newspaper which cannot be

said to be a leading newspaper. He would further submit that though an

application was moved seeking permission for advertisement, what was

required was a request for surplus employee, and as the same has not

been done, the impugned order does not deserve interference.

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

6. By communication of 20th March, 2022, certain deiciencies were

communicated, which were duly complied with by the management.

Perusal of the said deiciencies would indicate that reliance has been

placed on certain Government Resolutions which also form part of the

present impugned order. It is not clear as to why, while considering the

proposal in the irst instance, all the deiciencies which are now noted in

the impugned order were not communicated to the management. It is

expected that when the proposal is scrutinized, the Education Oicer

would communicate all deiciencies arising out of the said proposal

required to be complied with, instead of communicating the deiciencies

in piecemeal manner.

7. Be that as it may. In the present case, in so far as the deiciencies

at serial Nos. 1 and 4 are concerned, as regards index and pagination

and veriication of the roster, the same had already been complied with

Harish 4 of 8
912-WP-18462-2024.doc

in the earlier instance.

8. The deiciency at serial No. 2, is as regard NOC not having been

obtained for recruitment. The petitioner has placed on record the

applications submitted seeking permission for publishing the

advertisement on 12th December, 2013 and 5th October, 2015. Perusal of

the applications would indicate that in the application of 12 th

December, 2013, it was speciically stated that there was only one peon

working, and in the application of 5th October, 2015, it was speciied that

there is not even a single peon working in the petitioner school, and

therefore there is urgency. Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of

Private Schools (Conditions of Service ) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short

“MEPS Act”) provides for the management to ill up the vacancy as and

when the same arises. In the present case, due to inaction on the part of

the Education Oicer, neither any communication was addressed

sending surplus candidates, nor any permission was given for

advertisement. The contention of the learned AGP that the application

sought permission for advertisement and not information about the

surplus employee cannot be accepted, as the application for

advertisement is, in fact, an indication for permission to ill up the post,

and therefore, in the event there are any surplus employees, it is the

duty of the Education Oicer to respond to the said application and

inform the management to absorb the surplus employees. The

Harish 5 of 8
912-WP-18462-2024.doc

deiciency at serial No. 3 does not specify the procedure which was not

followed by the management and is vague.

9. In so far as the contention that the advertisement was not

published in two newspapers is concerned, even if it is accepted that

there is non-compliance with the GR, the same cannot constitute a

solitary ground for rejection of the proposal for approval when all other

conditions are complied with. At the highest, the same can be termed to

be an irregularity and not an illegality in the appointment procedure if

there is no other ground for rejection.

10. In so far as the deiciencies at serial Nos. 7 and 8 are concerned,

the ban was only for a period of one year, extended by the Government

Resolution of 16th July, 2011 for a period of one year thereafter, and

the petitioner's appointment is much subsequent thereto.

11. The deiciency cited in respect of the staing pattern is covered

by the decision in the case of Vikas Shikshan Mandal (supra), where the

Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has considered the issue as regards

the various Government Resolutions pertaining to the ixing of the

staing pattern. The Division Bench 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

Harish 6 of 8
912-WP-18462-2024.doc

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
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."

12. The said decision is a suicient answer to the deiciency cited by

the Education Oicer.

13. In so far as the deiciencies at serial Nos. 11 to 14 are concerned,

the documents produced on record indicate compliance with the said

deiciencies, and it is not demonstrated that apart from the above,

Harish 7 of 8
912-WP-18462-2024.doc

there is any other non-compliance.

14. In light of the above, the impugned order is clearly unsustainable.

We are inclined to allow the petition.

15. Respondent No. 5, Education Oicer, is directed to grant approval

to the petitioner's appointment with efect from 13th April 2016 within a

period of three weeks from today.

16. Respondent No. 4 is directed to include the name of petitioner

No. 1 in the Shalarth Pranali and to allot the Shalarth ID to petitioner

No. 1 within a period of two weeks thereafter, and the grant-in-aid

arrears of salary to be released within a period of three weeks

thereafter.

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

Harish 8 of 8

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…