SANJAY BASAWANNAPPA UPPINversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. THE SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SPORTS DEPARTMENT AND ORS

                                                                                       32-WP-3960-2026.doc


          Digitally signed
          by HARISH
                                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
HARISH    VITHAL
VITHAL    CHAUDHARI
CHAUDHARI Date:
                                                    CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
          2026.08.29
          18:31:56 +0530                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 3960 OF 2026

                             Sanjay Basawannappa Uppin                         ...Petitioner.
                                     Versus
                             The State Of Maharashtra
                             Thr. The Secretary,
                             School Education And Sports Department And Others ...Respondents.

                                                              ——————
                             Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioner.
                             Mr. P. V. Nelson Rajan, AGP for the Respondent-State.
                                                              ——————

                                                                Coram :     Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                                                            Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                                                Date      : August 28, 2026.
                             P. C. :

                             1.        In the present petition the challenge is to the order dated

                             30.06.2025 passed by respondent No. 5, the Education Oicer, whereby

                             the proposal submitted by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 seeking individual

                             approval for the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Junior

                             Clerk at the respondent No. 7 Secondary School was rejected on the

                             ground of the communication dated 28.05.2025.

                             2.        Respondent No. 6 is a Minority Institution and on 30.06.2022, a

                             post of Junior Clerk became vacant, pursuant to which an

                             advertisement was issued on 15.03.2023 and the petitioner came to be

                             appointed on 20.06.2023, with efect from 15.07.2023. On 24.07.2023,


                             Harish                              1 of 4
                                                         32-WP-3960-2026.doc


the proposal was submitted, which came to be rejected by the

impugned order dated 30.06.2025 relying on the communication issued

on 28.05.2025.

3.       Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, irstly,

the communication of 28.05.2025 will not apply to a minority institution,

which is a well-settled and reiterated position of law relying upon the

decision of the Nagpur Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 8174 of

2025. He would further submit that the appointment of the petitioner

was on 20.06.2023 by reason of a post becoming vacant, and the

communication in question is a subsequent communication.

4.       Per contra, learned AGP would support the impugned order and

submits that by reason of the communication of 28.05.2025, the order

has been rightly passed.

5.       The only reason for rejection of the petitioner’s approval is the

communication dated 28.05.2025 issued by the Director of Education.

The issue regarding the applicability of the said communication in case

of minority institutions was considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of

this Court (Nagpur Bench) in Writ Petition No. 8174 of 2025. The Hon’ble

Division Bench noted that the controversy as regards the directive

dated 28.05.2025 to minority institutions is misconceived as it is

squarely covered by the pronouncement of this Court in the case of

Canossa Society and Another Vs. Commissioner, Social Welfare,


Harish                             2 of 4
                                                         32-WP-3960-2026.doc


Directorate, Government of Maharashtra and Others [2014 SCC OnLine

Bom 536], where this Court held that in the case of minority institutions

exercising their right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, the

consequence of the impugned order impedes the valid exercise of the

right by the minority institution to recruit non-teaching staf. It was

further held that it is impermissible to resort to such an action of

imposing a condition of absorption of surplus staf on the petitioner-

institution as it directly infringes the fundamental right conferred on

minority institutions to administer and establish their educational

institutions. The Hon’ble Division Bench quashed and set aside the

communication dated 28.05.2025 and directed the grant of approval in

that case.

6.       Considering that the decision was rendered on 23.02.2026 and

impugned order in the present case was passed on 30.06.2025, the

Education Oicer would not have the beneit of the order, which is

subsequent to the passing of the impugned order.

7.       Considering the decision dated 23.02.2026, the order of

30.06.2025 is clearly unsustainable and is hereby quashed and set aside.

8.       The proposal is remitted to the ile of the Education Oicer to

consider the same afresh in light of the decision dated 23.02.2026

passed in Writ Petition No. 8174 of 2025. Apart from the directives

dated 28.05.2025, if there are no other deiciencies which would come


Harish                            3 of 4
                                                          32-WP-3960-2026.doc


in the way of the grant of approval to the petitioner, it is expected that

the Education Oicer would grant the approval within a period of three

weeks from today.

9.       The petition is allowed in the above terms.

10.      In case approval is granted, the respondent No. 4 is to include the

name of the petitioner in the Shalarth Pranali and issue Shalarth ID

within a period of two weeks thereafter, and the grant-in-aid salary to

be released within a period of four weeks thereafter.



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




Harish                             4 of 4