Bombay High Court

RAMDAS GANPAT PAWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The Court held that the Education Officer’s rejection was unsustainable and that the appointment of the petitioner as part‑time librarian is valid and must be approved.

Summary

Ramdas Pawar was appointed as a part‑time librarian in a private school and sought approval from the Education Officer, who rejected the proposal on four grounds: lack of prior objection, advertisement not in two newspapers, unapproved staffing pattern, and no approved pattern for 2014‑15. The petitioner contended that the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 does not require prior permission, that a single widely‑circulated newspaper suffices for advertisement, and that the staffing schedule for 2013‑14 already sanctioned the post. The Court examined the relevant statutory provisions and prior judgments (Mulye and Vikas Shikshan Mandal) and held that the Education Officer’s reasons were unsustainable. Consequently, the order rejecting the appointment was quashed, the petitioner was directed to be granted approval and benefits, and the writ petition was disposed of in his favour.

Issues considered

Whether prior permission or a ‘no objection’ from the Education Officer is required under the MEPS Act for appointing a part‑time librarian in a private school.
Whether advertisement must be published in two widely circulated newspapers as a condition for valid appointment.
Whether the absence of an approved staffing pattern for non‑teaching staff invalidates the appointment.
Whether the Government Resolutions of 2013, 2015 and later affect the legality of the appointment made in 2013‑14.
Whether procedural irregularities, if any, can be condoned without vitiating the appointment.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 — s. 5

Subjects

appointment
part‑time librarian
private school
MEPS Act
staffing pattern
advertisement requirement
procedural irregularity
writ petition
education officer

Judgment

4-WP-4583-2022-J.doc

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 4583 OF 2022

Shri. Ramdas Ganpat Pawar,
Age: 41 Years, Occupation: Service,
R/o. A/P. Yedgaon, Taluka: Vaibhavawadi,
District: Sindhudurg. …..Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
School Education and Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.

2. The Commissioner of Education,
School Education Department,
Maharashtra State, Pune.

3. The Director of Education,
(Secondary and Higher Secondary),
Maharashtra State, Pune-1.

4. The Deputy Director of Education,
Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur,
Having Oice at, Somwar Peth,
Hatti Mahal, Ganji Galli,
Kolhapur-416 002.

5. The Education Oicer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Sindhudurg,
Having Oice at, Zilla Parishad
Building, Oras, Taluka: Kudal,
District: Sindhudurg,

Gaikwad RD 1 of 11
4-WP-4583-2022-J.doc

6. Vaibhavawadi Taluka Shikshan Sanstha,
Mumbai, having oice at
Arjun Ravrane Vidyalaya,
Vaibhavawadi, District: Sindhudurg,
Through its President/Secretary.

7. Arjun Ravrane Vidyalaya,
Vaibhavwadi, Tal. Vaibhavwadi,
District: Sindhudurg,
Through its Head Master. ...Respondents.
——————
Mr. Prashant Bhavake (Through VC), for the Petitioner.
Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondents-State.
Mr. Utkarsh Desai, for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Reserved on : September 09, 2026.
Pronounced on : September 16, 2026.
JUDGMENT : (Per Neeraj P. Dhote, J.)

1. By consent of both the sides, heard inally at the admission stage.

2. Impugned in this Writ Petition is the order dated 21 st August 2018

passed by the Respondent No. 5-Education Oicer rejecting the

proposal for approval to the appointment of the Petitioner as the part-

time Librarian in the Respondent No.7-School run by the Respondent

No. 6-Management.

3. Following are the reasons for which the proposal is rejected by

the impugned order is passed:

(a) No objection was not taken from the department before

recruitment.

Gaikwad RD 2 of 11
4-WP-4583-2022-J.doc

(b) The advertisement was not published in the two newspapers

having wide circulation.

approved at the Government level.

(d) There was no approval to the staing pattern of the non-teaching

staf for the year 2014-15.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that, the

Petitioner was qualiied as the Higher Secondary School Certiicate

(HSC) and completed the Library Training Center Course. The additional

part-time post of Librarian was sanctioned with the Respondent No. 7-

School in the approved Staf Schedule of the Academic Year 2013-14.

The Respondent No. 6-Management approached the Respondent No. 5-

Education Oicer to ascertain the availability of suitable candidates for

the post of part-time Librarian, however, no information was available in

that regard. The Respondent No. 6-Management published the

advertisement in the newspaper 'Prahaar' for recruitment to the post of

part-time Librarian. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the Petitioner

applied and got selected and was appointed as the part-time Librarian

on probation for three years with efect from 19 th December 2013. The

Headmaster of the Respondent No. 7-School submitted the proposal for

approval of appointment of the Petitioner. As the same was not

decided, Writ Petition No.4985 of 2016 was iled and this Court directed

Gaikwad RD 3 of 11
4-WP-4583-2022-J.doc

the Respondent No.5-Education Oicer to decide the proposal within

the stipulated period. By the impugned order, the proposal is rejected

by the Respondent No. 5-Education Oicer.

5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that,

as it is nobody's case that there was any surplus part-time Librarian

available at the time of appointment of the Petitioner, the ground No. 1

is not sustainable. The reliance on the Government Resolutions dated

23rd October 2013 and 12th February 2015 is not sustainable as the

Government Resolution dated 12th February 2015 provides to maintain

status quo in respect of Master Plan (Akrutibandha) of non-teaching

staf approved by the Government Resolution dated 23 rd October 2013

till receiving the report of the Committee constituted for modifying the

Master Plan. The appointment of the Petitioner was prior to the

issuance of the Government Resolution dated 12th February 2015,

therefore, the impugned order was not sustainable.

6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that,

as regards the ground of no objection before initiating the recruitment

process, the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of

Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (‘MEPS Act’) and the Maharashtra

Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (‘MEPS

Rules’) framed thereunder nowhere provides for obtaining no objection

from the Education Oicer. As per Section 5 of the MEPS Act,

Gaikwad RD 4 of 11
4-WP-4583-2022-J.doc

obligation is imposed upon the Management to ascertain whether any

suitable person was available in the list maintained by the Education

Oicer and as there was no surplus part-time Librarian available, the

said ground was unsustainable.

7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that,

as regards the publication of the advertisement in two largely circulated

newspapers, there is no provision under the MEPS Act and MEPS Rules

mandating the publication of advertisement in two newspapers. The

appointment of the Petitioner was made as per the then existing Master

Plan (Akrutibandha) and in the approved Staf Schedule for the

Academic Year 2013-2014, the post of part-time Librarian was duly

sanctioned. He submitted that the petition be allowed.

8. The learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the

Judgments of this Court, which would be considered in the latter part of

the Judgment.

9. It is submitted by learned AGP appearing for the Respondent Nos.

1 to 5 that, the advertisement was published in only one newspaper,

which was not approved by the State as the ‘widely circulated

newspaper’. The recognition to the said newspaper as the ‘widely

circulated newspaper’ was subsequent. It was necessary for the

Management to seek the no objection from the Respondent No. 5-

Education Oicer before initiating the recruitment process, which was

Gaikwad RD 5 of 11
4-WP-4583-2022-J.doc

not done. Though the Staf Schedule of the Academic Session 2013-14

shows one post of part-time Librarian, the new staing pattern for the

non-teaching staf was pending approval at the State level. She further

submitted that the Respondent No. 5-Education Oicer passed the

impugned order in accordance with Rules and no interference is called

for in the same.

10. It is submitted by learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7

that, the appointment of the petitioner was made after following due

process.

11. In the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of

Prathamesh Nayan Mulye vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., 1 the

challenge was to the order passed by the Education Oicer refusing to

grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner on the post of

Library Assistant. The order impugned therein was passed on the

ground that, the Management did not obtain prior permission in terms

of Government Resolution dated 6th February 2012, no advertisement

was published in two newspapers in terms of Government Resolution

dated 6th February 2012, there was backlog of reserved category and

without illing the reserved post, the Petitioner was recruited from the

open category. This Court observed that the objections/reasons No.1

and 2, i.e., no prior permission and no advertisement in two newspapers,

1 Writ Petition No.991 of 2024 Dtd. 29th November 2024.

Gaikwad RD 6 of 11
4-WP-4583-2022-J.doc

would be at the most an irregularity attributable to the Management,

which could be condoned by imposing cost of Rs. 50,000/- payable by

the Management and the said irregularity would not vitiate the

selection process. The petition was allowed and the order impugned

therein was set aside.

12. In the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of

Vikas Shikshan Mandal & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2 the

order impugned was refusal to grant approval to the appointment of

the Petitioner therein on the post of Peon on the grounds of non-

submission of certain documents, efect of ban imposed by the State

Government for certain period, non-compliance of formal procedure

and applicability of staing pattern sought to be introduced by

Government Resolution dated 20th November 2013. This Court framed

the following points for consideration:

(i) Whether ban imposed by the Government Resolution post subject-
matter appointments would invalidate the approval proposal?

(ii) Whether in the peculiar circumstances if education oicer merely sits
on the application, an appointment if made by following the requisite
procedure and without any element of fraud, misrepresentation of
facts, or manipulation of record, would be vitiated for want of No
Objection from the Education Oicer?

(iii) Changes in the staing patterns in the private schools, efects of the
Government Resolution dated 23.10.2013, 12.02.2015, 28.01.2019,

2 Writ Petition No.6812 of 2024 Dtd. 2nd February 2026.

Gaikwad RD 7 of 11
4-WP-4583-2022-J.doc

and 12.12.2020, and fate of the appointments made during the
transition of the policies on staing patterns.

13. This Court considered the Government Resolution dated 6 th

February 2012. This Court further observed that the Government

Resolution of 2015 kept Government Resolution of 2013 in abeyance ab

initio. This Court observed that, holding that the policy of 2013

Government Resolution remained in force since its inception till

issuance of 2019 and 2020 policies or at least till issuance of the

Government Resolution of 2015, would be absolutely illogical. This

Court rejected the objection recorded by the Education Oicer that

Government Resolution of 2013 disqualiies the proposal for approval

to the appointment, which was made in August 2014. The said writ

petition was allowed.

14. The Government Resolution dated 10 th June 2022, the copy of

which is tendered across the Bar by the learned Advocate for the

Petitioner, shows that the newspaper 'Prahar' in the Sindhudurg District

was recognized as the ‘newspaper having wide circulation’.

15. Coming to the case at hand, the Ground No.1 is that no prior

permission of the Department was taken before the recruitment. It is

the speciic contention of the Petitioner that the Management had

approached the oice of Respondent No.5-Education Oicer to

ascertain whether any suitable candidate was available for the post of

Gaikwad RD 8 of 11
4-WP-4583-2022-J.doc

part-time librarian, however, information in respect of the same was not

available with the oice of Respondent No.5-Education Oicer. It is

further categorically stated that, the Respondent No.6-Management

submitted the application to the oice of Respondent No.5-Education

Oicer seeking permission for publishing the advertisement in the

newspaper, however, there was no response to the same. There is no

counter by the Respondents to the said categorical averment of the

Petitioner. Thus, the said averment of Petitioner went unchallenged.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has rightly placed reliance on the

provisions of Section 5(1) of the MEPS Act, which requires the

educational institution/management to ill up the vacant post as early

as possible. Thus, the Ground/Reason No.1 in the impugned order falls

down.

16. The papers clearly shows that, the advertisement for the post of

part-time librarian was published by the Respondent No.6-Management

in the daily newspaper 'Prahar'. The aforesaid Government Resolution

dated 10th June 2022 shows the name of the said newspaper 'Prahar' as

the ‘widely circulated newspaper’. True it is that, the advertisement in

the said newspaper 'Prahar' was published in the year 2013 and the

recognition as the ‘widely circulated newspaper’ is in the year 2022. It is

not that the recognition to the newspaper is given suddenly on the basis

of the circulation during a short period. The recognition by the said

Gaikwad RD 9 of 11
4-WP-4583-2022-J.doc

Government Resolution to the said newspaper clearly goes to show

that, only because the said newspaper was having wide circulation, the

same was given recognition. We ind merit in the submission by learned

Counsel for the Petitioner that there is no requirement under the law to

publish the advertisement in two newspapers, having wide circulation.

The Respondent No.6-Management has rightly published the

advertisement in one newspaper, having wide circulation as mandated

under the MEPS Act. Therefore, the said Ground/Reason No. 2 has no

legs to stand.

17. As regards the Ground/Reason Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, the

same appears ex facie unsustainable for the reason that Exhibit ‘B’ (Page

No.27 of the petition), which is the copy of the Staf Schedule of the

Respondent No.7-School for the Academic Session 2013-14 clearly

shows one post for the part-time librarian on aided basis. The same is

issued by the Respondent No.5-Education Oicer. This being the

undisputed aspect of the matter, the Grounds Nos.3 and 4 mentioned in

the impugned order would be clearly unsustainable.

18. This Court in the aforesaid decision of Vikas Shikshan Mandal

(supra) considered the Government Resolutions dated 23 rd October

2013 and 12th February 2015 referred in the impugned order and,

therefore, the reliance on the said Government Resolutions by the

Gaikwad RD 10 of 11
4-WP-4583-2022-J.doc

Respondent No.5-Education Oicer for refusing the proposal cannot be

sustained.

19. In the light of the above discussion, the Petition is liable to be

allowed. Hence, the following order:

ORDER

i) The impugned order dated 21st August 2018 passed by the

Respondent No.5-Education Oicer is quashed and set aside.

ii) The Respondent No.5-Education Oicer to grant individual

approval to the appointment of the Petitioner in the post of

part-time librarian in the Respondent No.7-School from 19 th

December 2013 and grant all the consequential beneits

within a period of six (6) weeks from today.

iii) The Writ Petition stands disposed of.

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

Digitally
signed by
RAJU
RAJU DATTATRAYA
DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD Date:
2026.09.16
20:17:11
+0530

Gaikwad RD 11 of 11

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…