AVANTIKA ASHOK JADHAV (AFTER MARRIAGE AVANTIKA DHONDIRAM SHINDE) AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPT. AND ORS.

2026:BHC-KOL:8886-DB

                                                                              30 wp 2389-26.doc


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

                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 2389 OF 2026

               Avantika Ashok Jadhav and Others.                     ...Petitioners.
                       Versus
               The State of Maharashtra and Others.                  ...Respondents.
                                           ——————
               Mr. Gajraj A. Mali for the Petitioner.
               Mr. A. A. Alaspurkar, AGP for the Respondent-State.
                                                  ——————
                                                    Coram :     Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                                                Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                                    Date      : September 11, 2026.
               P. C. :

               1.         By the present petition, challenge is to the order dated 30 th April

               2026 by which the Education Officer, relying upon Government

               Resolution dated 10th June 2005 has observed that the Petitioner No.1

               is required to be appointed on the post of Shikshan Sevak and returned

               the proposal for grant of approval to the appointment of Petitioner

               No.1 on the post of Assistant Teacher.

               2.         Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Petitioner No.1 was duly

               qualified for being appointed to the post of laboratory assistant and

               after following due process, came to be appointed as laboratory

               assistant on 16th March 2020.             Approval to the appointment of

               Petitioner No.1 was granted on 4 th October 2024 with effect from 16th

               March 2020. Petitioner No.1 worked on the post of laboratory assistant


               Patil-SR                              1 of 4
                                                          30 wp 2389-26.doc


from 16th March 2020 till 15th March 2023 on honorarium basis and

attended the status of permanent laboratory assistant. In the year

2023, due to retirement, one post of assistant teacher fell vacant in

Petitioner No.2-school and the Petitioner No.1 having requisite

qualification was promoted to the post of assistant teacher in Petitioner

No.2-school. Upon the proposal submitted for approval, the impugned

order came to be passed. Hence, the present petition.



3.         Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that

the Education Officer has relied upon Government Resolution dated

10th June 2005 in order to return the proposal on the ground that

appointment is required to be firstly on the post of Shikshan Sevak on

honorarium basis and secondly on the basis of Government Resolution

dated 25th March 2026 prohibiting the promotion from non teaching

staff to teaching staff. He submits that insofar as the Government

Resolution dated 10th June 2005 is concerned, the same is already held

to be discriminatory by this Court in Suhas Rangraoji More v. State of

Maharashtra1.        He submits that insofar as Government Resolution

dated 25th March 2026 is concerned, as the Petitioner is promoted in the

year 2023, the subsequent Government Resolution will not have any

application in the present case.

1    WP 7706 of 2022 (Nagpur Bench) dtd. 21-12-2023.


Patil-SR                            2 of 4
                                                          30 wp 2389-26.doc


4.         The proposal seeking grant of approval to the appointment of

Petitioner No.1 came to be rejected by relying upon Government

Resolutions dated 25th March 2026 and 10th June 2005. Insofar as the

Government Resolution dated 10th June 2005 is concerned, the same

was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Suhas Rangraoji

More v. State of Maharashtra (supra) wherein this Court has noted that

Clause 8 of the Government Resolution dated 10 th June 2005 which

stipulated the promotion of non teaching staff as Shikshan Sevak on

payment of honorarium is arbitrary and discriminatory and had directed

the Petitioner therein to be appointed as assistant teacher with the

prescribed pay scale at par with the pay scale of other similarly placed

promotees. The said decision of this Court squarely applies to the facts

of the present case and therefore rejection by the Education Officer on

the basis of Government Resolution dated 10 th June 2005 does not

survive.

5.         Insofar as the Government Resolution dated 25 th March 2026 is

concerned, the same places an embargo on promotion from non

teaching post to teaching post. As it is not disputed that the

appointment of Petitioner No.1 was prior to the issuance of

Government Resolution dated 25th March 2026, the said GR will not have

retrospective application.




Patil-SR                           3 of 4
                                                              30 wp 2389-26.doc


6.         In the light of above, the impugned order dated 30 th April 2026 is

hereby quashed and set aside.           Respondent No.3 has rejected the

proposal by taking into consideration the above discussed GRs. The

proposal is, therefore, remitted to the file of Education Officer, to be

considered afresh by considering whether the appointment of

Petitioner No.1 is valid and in accordance with law.         As Government

Resolutions dated 25th March 2026 and 10th June 2005 do not apply to

the case of Petitioner No.1, the Education Officer is directed not to

take into consideration the said GRs. The proposal to be decided by the

Education Officer expeditiously and in any event within a period of

three weeks from today.

7.         The petition is allowed in the above terms.




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




Patil-SR                             4 of 4