UTTARESHWAR RAMHARI MUNDHE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SPORTS AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-KOL:8442-DB

                                                                      908-WP-3992-2026(C).doc


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

                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 3992 OF 2026

               Uttareshwar Ramhari Mundhe And Others                     ...Petitioners
                         Versus
               The State of Maharashtra and Others                       ...Respondents

                                          ——————
               Mr. Prathameesh P. Magadum, for the Petitioners.
               Mr. Prajwal Thorat for Respondent No.4.
               Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State.
                                               ——————

                                               CORAM :         SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
                                                               NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.

                                               DATE        :   SEPTEMBER 02, 2026.

               P. C. :

               1.        By the present Petition, the Petitioners challenge the impugned

               communication dated 10th July, 2026 and the impugned order dated 28 th

               July, 2026 issued by the Education Officer, reviewing its own order

               granting approval to the re-employment of Petitioner No.1 as

               Headmaster, which decision was taken by the management under Rule

               17(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of

               Service) Rules, 1981 (for short “MEPS Rules”).

               2.        Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners would submit that

               the Petitioner No.1 had superannuated on 30 th June, 2026, which was in


               Jamadar-SL                         1 of 6
                                                   908-WP-3992-2026(C).doc


the middle of the semester, and in order to ensure the smooth

functioning of the Petitioner No.3 and in exercise of the powers under

Rule 17 (2) of the MEPS Rules, the Petitioner No.2 Management decided

to extend the term of the Petitioner No.1 till 31 st December, 2026. He

submits that accordingly, a resolution was passed on 28 th June, 2026

and an appointment order was issued extending the term of the

Petitioner No.1 on the post of the Headmaster from 1 st July, 2026 till

31st December, 2026. He would further submit that before submitting

the proposal for approval of the Petitioner No.1’s re-employment to the

Education Officer, the management prepared a seniority list and

finalized the same by taking signatures of all the employees, which

included Respondent No.4 herein, stating that there is no objection by

any employee. He submits that it is therefore not open now for the

Respondent No.4 to resile from the said no objection and raise a

grievance. He would further submit that the management sent a

proposal on 28th June, 2026 to the Respondent No.3 - Education Officer,

who granted approval on 5th July, 2026. He submits that the Respondent

No.4 raised a complaint before the Respondent No.3 - Education Officer,

pursuant to which the Respondent No.3 issued the communication

dated 10th July, 2026 instructing the management to submit a fresh

proposal. He submits that thereafter the impugned order has been

passed on 28th July, 2026 cancelling the earlier approval granted to the


Jamadar-SL                      2 of 6
                                                                    908-WP-3992-2026(C).doc


Petitioner No.1’s re-employment. He would submit that there was no

power of review vested in the Education Officer, drawing support from

the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of

Abdul Jabbar Shaikh versus the The State of Maharashtra and

Others1.

3.       Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4,

who had complained against the grant of approval, would submit that

the order of the Education Officer has now been confirmed by the

Deputy Director of Education on 5th August, 2026. He would further

submit that the proposal sent by the management was itself in violation

of Rule 17 of the MEPS Rules inasmuch as it is only where the

superannuation takes place in the middle of the academic term that a

decision can be taken by the management. He submits that in the

present case, the Petitioner No.1 retired on 30 th June, 2026, which

cannot be said to be the middle of the academic term. He would further

submit that the expression used in Rule 17 of the MEPS Rules is

“re-employment beyond the age of superannuation”, whereas the

approval which has been granted by the Education Officer was for

extension, and therefore the order was clearly unsustainable.

4.       Learned AGP would support the impugned order and would

submit that as the approval which was granted was in violation of Rule

1    Writ Petition No. 460 of 2022 decided on 30th January, 2023.



Jamadar-SL                                     3 of 6
                                                    908-WP-3992-2026(C).doc


17 of the MEPS Rules, the Education Officer has rectified the error and

has cancelled the approval granted earlier.

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

6.     There is no dispute about the factual position that the Petitioner

No.1 had superannuated on 30th June, 2026 and a decision was taken by

the management to re-employ the Petitioner No.1 and accordingly the

resolution was passed by the management. Perusal of the resolution

would indicate that it was resolved under Rule 17 (2) of the MEPS Rules

and the Petitioner No.1 be granted extension till 31 st December, 2026.

Accordingly, the proposal was sent to the Education Officer after

obtaining the no-objection of the employees which also included the

Respondent No.4. Having given his no objection before sending the

proposal to the Education Officer, it is now not open for the

Respondent No.1 to approbate and reprobate. Be that as it may, the

Education Officer has thereafter approved the proposal and though a

contention is sought to be raised that the approval is for the extension,

the phraseology is immaterial inasmuch as it cannot be disputed that

the extension/re-employment of the Petitioner No.1 was in exercise of

the powers of the management under Rule 17 of the MEPS Rules.


7.     The core issue which is required to be considered is whether,

having granted an approval to the Petitioner No.1’s re-employment, any



Jamadar-SL                       4 of 6
                                                     908-WP-3992-2026(C).doc


power of review existed in the Education Officer to review its own order

and cancel its earlier approval.


8.     In the case of Abdul Jabbar Shaikh versus the The State of

Maharashtra and Others (supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench of this

Court was faced with an identical situation where an extension was

given as contemplated by Rule 17 (2) of the MEPS Rules and the

Education Officer had granted its approval thereto and thereafter the

same came to be cancelled. The Hon'ble Division Bench observed that

the power of review is not inherent and the Education Officer could not

have reviewed its earlier order, as it is not a power that can be conferred

by the rules and there is no provision which is demonstrated to show

the exercise of any such power of review. We are respectfully bound by

the said decision.

9.     There is no power of review which is vested in the Education

Officer. Pertinently, it is not the Respondent No.4 who approached this

Court assailing the approval which was granted by the Education

Officer, but the Education Officer, who reviewed its own order without

having any power of review.


10.    In light of the above, the impugned order of the Education Officer

cancelling its earlier approval is clearly unsustainable in law and is

hereby quashed and set aside.


Jamadar-SL                         5 of 6
                                                              908-WP-3992-2026(C).doc


11.    Resultantly, the Petition succeeds in terms of prayer clause (a)

which reads as under :

      “(a)    That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or
      any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ,
      thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated
      10/07/2026 (Exhibit I) and the impugned order dated 28/07/2026 (Exhibit
      K) issued by the Respondent No.3 Education Officer and further be
      pleased to restore the order dated 05/07/2026 (Exhibit H) issued by the
      Respondent No.3 Education Officer and grant all necessary consequential
      benefits thereto;”




 [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]                          [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]




Jamadar-SL                             6 of 6