Bombay High Court

SHRI. SURENDRA YASHWANT KHATATEversusTHE STATE OF MAHA. THR. SEC. SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SPORTS DEPT. AND ORS

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The Government Resolution dated 10 June 2022 is not applicable to the present case, and the Education Officer’s order rejecting the proposal is set aside.

Summary

The petitioner challenged the Education Officer’s order rejecting his proposal for appointment to the aided post of Shikshan Sevak, which was based on a Government Resolution dated 10 June 2022 requiring proposals to be submitted within three months prior to the resolution. The petitioner was appointed on 20 December 2022 and submitted his proposal on 26 December 2022, a six‑day interval, arguing no delay. The respondents contended that the proposal was rightly rejected, citing the same resolution and a 2020 finance department communication embargo on new recruitment due to COVID‑19. The Court examined the applicability of the 10 June 2022 resolution and held that it did not apply to the facts, quashing the Education Officer’s order. The matter was remitted to the Education Officer for fresh consideration, with specific timelines for decision, inclusion in the staff list, issuance of ID, and release of grant‑in‑aid.

Issues considered

Whether the Government Resolution dated 10 June 2022 applies to proposals submitted after the appointment date of 20 December 2022.
Whether the six‑day delay in submitting the proposal constitutes a ground for rejection under the resolution.
Whether the 2020 finance department communication imposing a recruitment embargo due to COVID‑19 affects the validity of the Education Officer’s order.

Subjects

appointment
Shikshan Sevak
government resolution
recruitment embargo
COVID-19
writ petition
education officer
proposal submission
court order
remand

Judgment

53-WP-4460-2024.doc

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 4460 OF 2024

Surendra Yashwant Khatate ...Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents.

——————
Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioner.
Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondents-State.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : September 22, 2026.
P. C. :

1. By this petition, the order dated 11 th January 2023 passed by the

Education Oicer is impugned. By the impugned order, the proposal

submitted for appointment of the Petitioner to the aided post of

‘Shikshan Sevak’ came to be rejected on the ground of Government

Resolution dated 10th June 2022.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would point out

the GR dated 10th June 2022, which directs the private schools to submit

the proposals, which were not submitted within the period of three

months prior to the issuance of the G.R.. He further points out that

Petitioner came to be appointed on 20 th December 2022 and the

proposal was submitted on 26th December 2022.

Gaikwad RD 1 of 3
53-WP-4460-2024.doc

3. The learned AGP would support the impugned order and would

submit that the proposal has been rightly rejected. She would further

submit that due to COVID-19 pandemic, the Maharashtra State

Government’s Finance Department had issued the communication dated

4th May 2020 clearly placing an embargo on any new recruitment.

4. The only reason for rejection of the approval is the G.R. dated

10thJune 2022. Upon perusal of the G.R. dated 10 th June 2022, it is

evident that the same does not apply to the facts of the present case.

The Petitioner has been appointed on 20th December 2022 and within a

period of six days, the proposal was duly submitted. Therefore, there is

no delay in submission of the proposal. Though in the aidavit an

additional ground has been taken, the impugned order cannot be

supplemented by the Aidavit-in-reply.

5. As the impugned order is clearly unsustainable, it is hereby

quashed and set aside.

6. The proposal is remitted to the ile of the Education Oicer to be

considered afresh. It is made clear that as this Court has held that the

G.R. dated 10th June 2022 is not applicable, the same should not

constitute a ground for rejection of the proposal.

7. The Education Oicer to consider the proposal afresh and if the

same is in accordance with law to grant approval.

Gaikwad RD 2 of 3
53-WP-4460-2024.doc

8. The entire exercise to be carried out within a period of four weeks

from today.

9. In event, the approval is granted, the Respondent No.4-the

Deputy Director of Education to include the name of the Petitioner in

the shalarth pranali and issue the shalarth ID within a period of two

weeks thereafter. The grant-in-aid to be released within a period of two

weeks thereafter.

10. The Petition is allowed in above terms.

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

Digitally
signed by
RAJU
RAJU DATTATRAYA
DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD Date:
2026.09.22
20:56:27
+0530

Gaikwad RD 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…