APARNA ANKUSH BHANDALKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE HONORABLE SECRETARY AND ORS

          Digitally
          signed by
          AJIT
AJIT      RAMESH
RAMESH    PATHRIKAR
PATHRIKAR Date:
                                                                                             28-WP-2968-2023.DOC
          2026.10.05
          15:10:16
          +0530




                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                WRIT PETITION NO. 2968 OF 2023

                       Aparna Ankush Bhandalkar                                        ...Petitioner
                              Versus
                       State Of Maharashtra
                       Thr. The Honorable Secretary And Ors.                           ...Respondents

                                                               _______
                       Mr. Nikhil Waje for Petitioner.
                       Mr. A. R. Deolekar, AGP for Respondent-State.
                                                               _______

                                                            CORAM:        G. S. KULKARNI &
                                                                          DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

                                                            DATE:         28th SEPTEMBER 2026

                       P.C.

                       1.         By this Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the

                       Petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the order dated 9th January 2023 passed by

                       the Respondent No. 2, Education Officer (Secondary), by which the proposal for

                       approval of the Petitioner as a Laboratory Assistant in the Respondent No. 4

                       Institution was rejected.

                       2.         The Petitioner was appointed to the post of Laboratory Assistant at the

                       Respondent No.4 Institution on 15th June 2015. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the

                       Education Officer and the Deputy Director of Education, respectively, of the

                       Respondent No.1-State.

                       3.         Several employees in the posts of Junior Clerk, Senior Clerk, Laboratory

                       Assistant, Peon, etc., are stated to have retired from the Institution during the



                                                            Page 1 of 6
                       Ajit Pathrikar
                                                                    28-WP-2968-2023.DOC



period 2010-2014. The School run by the Institution had more than 2900 students

during the relevant period. Considering the staffing requirements, including a

Laboratory Assistant, for the school, the management sent a proposal to

Respondent No. 2, the Education Officer, seeking permission to publish an

advertisement inviting suitable candidates to fill the vacant post. The Education

Officer did not reply, and the school remained understaffed. In the interest of the

students studying in the school, the management published an advertisement dated

6th June 2015 in the Dainik Lokmat Newspaper inviting eligible candidates to

submit applications for recruitment. The advertisement also invited applications

for two posts of Laboratory Assistant.

4.         Interviews were conducted, and after following due process of law, the

Petitioner was selected for the post of Laboratory Assistant at the said school. The

Respondent No.4 passed a resolution in its executive council appointing the

Petitioner to the said post. Accordingly, the Petitioner was issued an appointment

letter and joined the school as a Laboratory Assistant with effect from 15th June

2015. After completing the probation period, his services were confirmed, and he

continues to work in the school to date. The Respondent No.4 Institution sought

approval of the Respondent No.2 as per procedure vide a letter dated 31st

December 2018 and pursued the same repeatedly. However, apart from assurances

that approval would be granted to the Petitioner’s appointment, no letter of

approval was forthcoming. Ultimately, by order dated 9th January 2023, the

Respondent No.2 rejected the proposal for approval on various grounds. It is this




                                    Page 2 of 6
Ajit Pathrikar
                                                                    28-WP-2968-2023.DOC



order refusing to grant approval to the Petitioner’s appointment that is assailed in

the present petition.

5.         Heard Mr. Nikhil Waje, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. A. R.

Deolekar, learned AGP for the Respondent-State.

6.         Mr. Waje submitted that the order refusing approval is without any basis.

The Petitioner has worked at the school for more than a decade and was appointed

to a vacant post as per the sanch manyata for the year 2023-2024. The post was

vacant due to the earlier employee's retirement, and the reasons given by the

Education Officer for rejecting approval of his appointment are baseless. He thus

submitted that the petition be allowed and that the Respondent be directed to

grant approval for his appointment.

7.         Mr. Deolekar brought to our attention the averments made by Mr. Nilesh

Dhanapune, In-Charge Deputy Education Officer, Secondary, Pune, in the

affidavit in reply dated 18th October 2024, filed by him on behalf of Respondent

No.2. According to Mr. Deolekar, no documentary evidence was submitted by the

Institution with the proposal to indicate a vacancy in the said post. He further

submitted that the 100 Point Model Roster was not verified with the office of the

Commissioner, Backward Class Cell, Pune, prior to the Petitioner’s recruitment.

Further, no permission was obtained from the Education Officer before publishing

the advertisement to recruit the Petitioner and others. Moreover, the seniority list

was not provided with the proposal. Mr. Deolekar submitted that the Petitioner’s

appointment to the post is illegal, as the State Government had banned

recruitment to non-teaching posts in private schools by its resolution dated 2nd


                                     Page 3 of 6
Ajit Pathrikar
                                                                      28-WP-2968-2023.DOC



May 2012. In these circumstances, Mr. Deolekar challenged the impugned order

and prayed that the petition be rejected.

8.         An affidavit-in-rejoinder has been filed by the Petitioner. It is contended

that the post of Laboratory Assistant fell vacant on the retirement of Shri Vishnu

Krishna Karanje, an erstwhile employee of the school. His appointment to the said

post was approved. He thus submits that the reasons for refusal are incorrect and

that the rejection order was passed without application of mind.

9.         Having heard both sides and perused the documents on record, it is evident

that the Respondent No.4 Institution sought the availability of surplus candidates

to fill the vacancy of Laboratory Assistant and other posts. The State failed to

nominate any surplus candidates. Furthermore, despite seeking permission to

advertise the said posts, the State failed either to grant permission or to refuse it.

Despite repeated requests from the Institution, the State remained inactive. Hence,

the Respondent No.4 Institution proceeded to issue an advertisement and appoint

the Petitioner and others to their respective posts after the due process of law. We

do not find any fault with the management, as it cannot be expected to leave posts

vacant for as long as the State decides to take cognizance of its request. We find it

logical for the management to presume the unavailability of surplus candidates in

view of the State’s failure and neglect to nominate them. Hence, no blame can be

foisted on the management for proceeding with the recruitment process.

10.        It is also evident from the documents on record that the Petitioner was

appointed to a post that had fallen vacant on the retirement of the erstwhile

Laboratory Assistant, namely Vishnu Krishnaji Karanje, who retired on 31st May


                                     Page 4 of 6
Ajit Pathrikar
                                                                        28-WP-2968-2023.DOC



2012. The post was sanctioned, and approval for his appointment was accorded.

The verified roster of the State, as placed on record by the Petitioner, also indicates

a total of five posts, two of which are in the category of Laboratory Assistants.

Further, the documents on record indicate that the Respondent No.4 Institution

had sent multiple applications with requests to the Divisional Commissioner,

Backward Class Cell, Pune, to verify and report the roster of non-teaching staff of

the said school. However, the Divisional Commissioner failed to give any reply to

the same. In these circumstances, the reasons given in the rejection order impugned

herein are not substantiated.

11.        Since the Petitioner was appointed to a post created by the retirement of the

former employee, no additional demand was placed on the Government's finance

department. If there were any objections to the recruitment process, the State

Government and the concerned departments ought to have acted promptly to

nominate surplus candidates for the vacancy. The Government departments

remained silent and were willing to sacrifice the interests of the students at the

educational institution due to a lack of adequate staff. The time has long passed

when we could expect the State Government to act promptly and ensure that all

stakeholders in the recruitment mechanism work in tandem.

12.        The Petitioner has been regularly employed at the school since 6th June

2015. There is no blemish on his performance. The Respondent institution has

timely sent requests for approval, but no reply has been received. The post could

not have been left vacant for an indefinite period. We find no lapse in the

Petitioner’s appointment to the said post.


                                      Page 5 of 6
Ajit Pathrikar
                                                                    28-WP-2968-2023.DOC



13.        In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the Impugned rejection

order was passed without any due application of mind. Consequently, the order

stands quashed and set aside.

14.        No costs.



(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.)                                 (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)




                                    Page 6 of 6
Ajit Pathrikar