Bombay High Court

MAHESH RAJENDRA BHOSIKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Grievance Committee, as the Government Resolution is valid and must be followed.

Summary

Mahesh Rajendra Bhosikar, a Shikshan Sevak and later Assistant Teacher, filed a writ petition seeking quashing of two orders that denied his appointment approval and arrears of salary, and prayed for a mandamus directing the authorities to grant the approvals. The petitioner urged the Court to consider the petition on merits, citing several earlier judgments that questioned the validity of the Government Resolution (GR) dated 27 March 2024 which created a Grievance Committee for such matters. The Court examined the earlier decisions of the Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No. 1775 of 2026 and the Division Bench rulings in Nitin Bhika Tagde’s case and Komal Balaji Awatirak’s case, which upheld the GR. Relying on those precedents, the Court held that until a larger bench decides otherwise, the GR remains valid and the petitioner must first approach the Grievance Committee. Consequently, the petition was disposed of, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the Committee, without granting any writ relief.

Issues considered

Whether the Government Resolution dated 27 March 2024 establishing a Grievance Committee is valid and binding on the parties.
Whether the petitioner can directly approach the High Court for certiorari or mandamus against the education department orders.
Whether the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court on the applicability of Section 9 of the MEPS Act control the present petition.

Legislation cited

MEPS Act — s. 9

Subjects

certiorari
mandamus
grievance committee
government resolution
education service appointment
MEPS Act
administrative law
high court jurisdiction

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:37821-DB

{1} wp4128-26.doc
drp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.4128 OF 2026

Mahesh Rajendra Bhosikar PETITIONER

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS

.......
Mr. V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. N. D. Batule, AGP for Respondent - State
....…

[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, &
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. J.]

DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026

ORDER :

1. By this Petition, the Petitioner has putforth following

prayers:

“B. By a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction in
the like nature, the order dated 16.09.2024 issued by the respondent
no.3 (at Exh.’I’) so also the order dated 14.01.2025 issued by the
respondent no.3 at Exh.’L’ may kindly be quashed and set aside.

C. By a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction in
the like nature, the respondent no.3 may kindly be directed to grant
approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak from
22.11.2021 to 21.11.2024 and to grant permanent approval to the
services of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in regular pay-scale
from 22.11.2024 and to release arrears of salary of the petitioner
within stipulated period of one month by including the petitioner’s
{2} wp4128-26.doc

name in Shalarth Pranili through the respondent no2.”

2. When we were inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition by

granting liberty to the Petitioner, to approach the Grievance

Committee constituted under the Government Resolution dated

27th March, 2024, learned Advocate for the Petitioner insisted for

considering the Petition on merits, citing following judgments.

I. Writ Petition No. 7355 of 2024 (Komal Balaji Awatirak V/s State
of Maharashtra)

II. Writ Petition No. 8322 of 2023 (Agrasen Shikshan Sanstha V/s
State of Maharashtra and Others)

III. Writ Petition No. 1775 of 2026 (Madhao Bahuddesiya Shiksan
Sanstha V/s State of Maharashtra)

IV. “Secretary Sh. A. P. D. Jain Pathshala and Others V/s Shivaji
Bhagwat More and Others” 2011 AIR SCW 4326

V. Writ Petition NO. 940 of 2018 (Swati Shivaji Lawhare V/s State of
Maharashtra)

VI. Writ Petition No. 4168 of 2022 (Vimal Namdeorao Kurwade V/s
State of Maharashtra and Others)

VII. Sankar Padam Thapa V/s Vijaykumar Dineshchandra Agarwal
2026 (1) Mh.L.J. SC 1

VIII. “National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi and
Others” 2017 AIR SC 5157
{3} wp4128-26.doc

3. According to the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, a

reference is made to the Larger Bench, challenging the validity of

the GR dated 27th March, 2024. Therefore, by relying on the

other judgments of this Court as well as of the Apex Court, he

submits that the Government has no authority to pass such

resolution and constitute the Grievance Committee.

4. Admittedly, this Court has upheld the validity of the said

GR, in two judgments. In Nagpur Bench judgment, passed in

Writ Petition No. 1775 of 2026 and connected matters, this Court

has made following observations :

“9. That being so, we are of the considered view that in terms of
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union
Territory (supra) until the reference is answered by the Larger
Bench, the law laid down by the Division Bench in Nitin Tadge and
Komal’s case will have to be followed and since the validity of the
Government Resolution has been upheld, the grievances / complaints
enlisted in the Government Resolution will have to be processed in
terms of the mechanism provided in the said Government Resolution
coupled with the directions issued by the Court in Nitin Tadge’s case.

10. We may note here that in Nitin Tadge’s case the Division
Bench took note of the fact that for petty matters which are not
covered under Section 9 of the MEPS Act, the educational institutes
and their employees are required to approach the High Court. The
petty matters include denial of personal recognition of teaching and
non teaching staff, the cases relating to rejection of transfer of
teaching and non teaching staff, refusal to upgrade the post of part
time librarian to that of full time librarian, cases relating to pay
revision, pay increments and pay scale, cases relating to pension and
pension benefits etc. The Division Bench was of the view that despite
the legal position having been settled on these issues, the authorities
{4} wp4128-26.doc

of Education Department while passing orders ignore the legal
position. This practice results into needless litigations. The Court
also took note of the fact that there are many aided schools and
institutions in Maharashtra and therefore there are number of
applications seeking approval. Resultantly, the litigation arising from
the inaction / and action of the authorities of the Education
Department on these applications is substantial. The Division Bench
was not really concerned with the number of matters but was more
concerned about the reasons leading to these petitions one of which
was inaction on the part of the educational authorities.”

5. We agree with the said view that till the reference is

decided by this Court, the law declared by the Decisions in the

cases of “Nitin Bhika Tagde and Another V/s the State of

Maharashtra and Another” in Writ Petition No. 204 of 2019 and

“Komal Balaji Awatirak and Another V/s The State of

Maharashtra and Others” in Writ Petition No.7355 of 2024, will

have to be followed.

6. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of by

granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach Grievance

Committee constituted under GR dated 27th March, 2024.

[ ABASAHEB D. SHINDE ] [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ]
JUDGE JUDGE

drp/wp4128-26.doc

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…