Bombay High Court

MAHADEV KASHINATHRAV DHAPATEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The impugned order denying the petitioner’s appointment is unsustainable and is set aside; the petitioner must be placed in the seniority list and absorbed into the Zilla Parishad service.

Summary

The petitioner, a voluntary teacher appointed on 1 July 2002, sought regular appointment as a Primary Teacher in the Zilla Parishad service, arguing that his long service should place him in the seniority list. He repeatedly requested absorption under Government Resolutions of 27 September 2011 and 1 March 2014, but his representations were ignored. The High Court, acting on a prior writ (3032/2022), directed the respondents to decide his representation, after which Respondent No.3 issued a letter dated 8 December 2022 denying his appointment because his name was absent from the seniority list. The Court held that the impugned order was unreasoned, ignored the petitioner’s service since 2002, and was based on irrelevant considerations. Consequently, the order was quashed, and the petitioner was directed to be placed in the appropriate position on the seniority list and absorbed into the Zilla Parishad service.

Issues considered

Whether the denial of appointment to the petitioner, based solely on his absence from the seniority list, is arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether the petitioner’s continuous service as a voluntary teacher since 2002 must be considered in determining his seniority and eligibility for regular appointment.

Subjects

Article 226
seniority list
appointment
primary teacher
voluntary teacher
Zilla Parishad service
natural justice
administrative law

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:43073-DB
1 81.WP.2031.23.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 2031 OF 2023

MAHADEV KASHINATHRAV DHAPATE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Sahebrao A. Nagarsoge
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. N.D. Batule
Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 : Mr. Prashant D. Suryawanshi
...

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE : 16.09.2026

PER COURT:

1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

challenges the communication/letter dated 08.12.2022 (Exhibit-H),

issued by respondent No.3, by which the petitioner is denied

appointment as Primary Teacher, on the ground that the petitioner's

name is not mentioned in the seniority list of the teachers working in

Residential School (Vasti Shala), Tq. Majalgaon, District Beed.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a voluntary teacher as per

appointment order dated 01.07.2002. Pursuant to the selection of the

petitioner as a voluntary teacher, an agreement was executed between
2 81.WP.2031.23.odt

the petitioner and the Gram Panchayat/Gram Shikshan Samiti, and the

petitioner joined the service as a voluntary teacher at Bhoi Vasti Shala,

at Laul Kramank 1, Taluka Majalgaon, District Beed, and started

working with effect from 01.07.2002. The petitioner is since then

working at Bhoi Vasti School till date.

3. By order dated 06.10.2003 the petitioner was directed to carry

out the work of Enumerator for survey of the families below the

poverty line.

4. The petitioner, from time to time, represented to the respondents

to absorb him in the Zilla Parishad service, in terms of Government

Resolutions dated 27.09.2011 and 01.03.2014. Since then the

representations of the petitioner were not considered. He approached

this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 3032/2022. This Court directed

the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner.

Pursuant to the said directions, respondent No. 3 has passed the

impugned order.

5. The impugned order, in our view, is unsustainable, as the same is

an unreasoned order. Without assigning any reason the service

rendered by the petitioner since 2002 is not taken into consideration.

The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained, as it is based on

irrelevant considerations.
3 81.WP.2031.23.odt

6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is

quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 3 is directed to place the name

of the petitioner at the appropriate place, taking into consideration the

date of appointment of the petitioner and absorb him in the Zilla

Parishad service, as per his turn.

(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)

habeeb/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…