AKSHAYKUMAR NAMDEV MOHITEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. THE SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SPORTS DEPT. AND ORS.

                                                                908 wp-4384-26.doc


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

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 4384 OF 2026

Akshaykumar Namdev Mohite.                                     ...Petitioner.
        Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others.                           ...Respondents.
                            ——————
Mr. Ukarsh Desai i/b Prashant S. Bhavake for the Petitioner.
Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State.
                                 ——————
                                    Coram :    Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                               Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                    Date     : September 10, 2026.
P. C. :

1.         By the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 8 th

June 2026 rejecting the proposal for grant of approval to the

Petitioner’s appointment on the post of junior clerk.

2.         The Petitioner was appointed on the post of junior clerk in the

Respondent No.7-school due to resignation of the then working junior

clerk on 23rd June 2022. The advertisement came to be issued on 31 st

January 2023 to which the Petitioner applied and was selected as per

the resolution of managing committee passed on 9 th February 2023. The

proposal for approval to the appointment of Petitioner was submitted

on 26th December 2025 to the Respondent No.5 – Education Officer. In

response thereto, by communication dated 25 th March 2026, the

Education Officer listed certain deficiencies, which were duly complied


Patil-SR                            1 of 4
                                                           908 wp-4384-26.doc


with by the management on 18 th May 2026. By the impugned order, the

proposal came to be rejected by reason of communication dated 28 th

May 2025 issued by the Director of Education directing that without

absorption of surplus teachers, recruitment is not permissible.

3.         Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has taken this Court

through the deficiencies noted by the Education Officer and which were

duly complied with by the management. He would submit that despite

the compliance of deficiencies, the Education Officer has rejected the

proposal by relying upon communication of 28 th May 2025 without

noticing that appointment of Petitioner was on 9 th February 2023, i.e.,

prior to the issuance of communication of 28th May 2025.

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

would submit that though the Petitioner was appointed on 9 th February

2023, the proposal was submitted on 26 th December 2025 and prior

thereto communication was addressed on 28 th May 2025 by the Director

of Education, which would bind the Education Officer. She would also

submit that in event this Court is inclined to approve the appointment

of Petitioner, then the State should not be burdened with the payment

of arrears of salary to the Petitioner, as the proposal came to be

submitted after a period of 2 years, i.e., on 26th December 2025.

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

6.         At page 130 of the petition is the advertisement issued by the


Patil-SR                            2 of 4
                                                           908 wp-4384-26.doc


Respondent No.6 inviting applications for the post of junior clerk to

which the Petitioner applied and has been appointed by passing

resolution dated 9th February 2023.          The Education Officer while

considering the proposal has listed several deficiencies, which were

complied by the management. By the impugned order dated 8 th June

2026, the Education Officer has not recorded non-satisfactory

compliance of deficiencies and therefore has accepted the compliances.

The only reason why the approval came to be rejected is the

communication of 28th May 2025 by which the Director of Education had

given directions not to carry out any recruitment without absorption of

the surplus teachers. The Education Officer failed to notice that the

Petitioner’s appointment was on 9th February 2023, i.e., prior to issuance

of the communication by the Director of Education and in any event, the

communication dated 28th May 2025 now stands superseded by

Government Resolution dated 11th August 2026.

7.         There is, however, substance in the contention of learned AGP

that as the proposal was submitted after almost 2 years, the State

Government should not be burdened with the arrears from the date of

appointment till the date of submission of proposal.

8.         As there is no other non compliance noted in the impugned order,

we direct the Respondent-Education Officer to grant approval to the

appointment of Petitioner on the post of junior clerk with effect from


Patil-SR                            3 of 4
                                                            908 wp-4384-26.doc


9th February 2023. However, arrears of grant-in-aid salary is to be paid

from the date of submission of proposal, i.e., 26 th December 2025.

Approval to be granted within a period of two weeks from today. The

Petitioner’s name be included in the Shalarth Pranali and Shalarth ID be

issued within a period of three weeks thereafter. The arrears of grant-

in-aid salary from 26th December 2025 to be paid within a period of

three weeks thereafter.

9.         The petition is allowed in the above terms.



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




Patil-SR                             4 of 4