JAYSHRI VASANT BANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY AND ORS

2026:BHC-KOL:8475-DB

                                                                            18-WP-4991-2023.doc


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

                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 4991 OF 2023


               Jayashri Vasant Bane                                         ...Petitioner
                         Versus
               The State Of Maharashtra Thr. The Secretary And Ors ...Respondents

                                                 ——————
               Mr. Prashant Bhavake a/w Adv. Durva Jadhav, for the Petitioner.
               Ms. Tejas Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State.
               Mr. Utkarsh Desai, for the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7.
                                                 ——————
                                                    Coram :    SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
                                                               NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.

                                                    Date     : SEPTEMBER 03, 2026

               P. C. :

               1.        By this Petition, the challenge is to the order dated 31 st August,

               2019, passed by Respondent No. 5-Education Officer. By the impugned

               order, the Education Officer granted approval for the Petitioner’s

               transfer from unaided post to aided post on a consolidated pay scale for

               the post of Shikshan Sevak, even though Petitioner had completed

               probation period and had acquired deemed permanency.

               2.        Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 20 th June, 2013, the

               Petitioner was appointed on unaided post of Shikshan Sevak, and her

               appointment was approved by the Education Officer on 12th June, 2014.



               Arya Chavan                          1 of 5
                                                                     18-WP-4991-2023.doc


As there was a transfer of the Petitioner from unaided post to aided

post on 15th June, 2018 by the management, proposal was submitted to

the Education Officer seeking approval. The Education Officer passed

the impugned order granting approval on consolidated pay scale for the

post of Shikshan Sevak, relying on the Government Circular dated 28 th

June, 2016.

3.       Mr. Bhavake, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that

the issue has been settled by various decisions of this Court, and in

particular, by the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in

the case of Sandip s/o Dilip Thorat vs The State of Maharashtra And

Others1 in Writ Petition No. 168 of 2021 and connected Petitions. He

submits that the Hon’ble Division Bench considered the clauses of the

Government Circular dated 28th June, 2016 and has held that Sub-Clause

5(A) of Clause 3 of Government Circular can be invoked only where the

Assistant Teacher has not completed three years period after his

appointment in the school on unaided basis and that he has not

received approval to his service as an Assistant Teacher on regular basis.

He would point out that in the present case, the Petitioner has

completed five years of service short of five days, and therefore,

approval was required to be granted for the post of Assistant Teacher in

regular pay scale.

1    WP No. 168 of 2021 decided on 22/07/2021 by Bombay High Court


Arya Chavan                                2 of 5
                                                                           18-WP-4991-2023.doc


4.       Per contra, learned AGP would submit that the Petitioner had filed

an undertaking with the Education Officer admitting that she has not

completed a period of five years, and that she is agreeable to the

approval being granted as Shikshan Sevak on consolidated pay for a

period of three years. She would submit that in the decision of Sandip

s/o Dilip Thorat vs The State of Maharashtra And Others (supra), the

Hon’ble Division Bench held that approval can be granted as assistant

teacher, and not Shikshan Sevak, only upon the completion of five year

period on unaided post.

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

6.       The decision in the case of Sandip s/o Dilip Thorat vs The State of

Maharashtra And Others (supra) covers the present issue. In that case,

the Hon’ble Division Bench had the occasion to consider various clauses

of the Government Circular dated 28th June, 2016. It noted the

provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions

of Service) Rules, 1981, as well as the judicial pronouncements on the

subject. It also noted the decision in the case of Sagar s/o Harichandra

Bhande And Another vs The State of Maharashtra And Others 2, where

it was held that when an Assistant Teacher has already completed three

years period, there is no justifiable reason to ask the Assistant Teacher

to work again as Shikshan Sevak on consolidated pay for three years. It

2    WP(St) No. 93916 of 2020 decided on 12/03/2021 by Bombay High Court


Arya Chavan                                 3 of 5
                                                                     18-WP-4991-2023.doc


held in paragraph 19 as under :


      “19. It is clear from these Petitions that the respective Petitioners had
      rendered service on unaided basis as Assistant Teacher in the respective
      Secondary Schools and were transferred to the aided division of the
      respective Secondary Schools on the basic sanctioned post which had
      become vacant on the said aided division and the said post was already on
      100% grant-in-aid basis. It has been clearly held by the Division Bench of this
      Court in the case of Sagar S/0. Harichandra Bhande & Anr. (supra), where
      the Assistant Teacher had already completed three years period, there is no
      justifiable reason to ask the Assistant Teacher to work again as Shikshan
      Sevak on consolidated pay for three years. Sub-Clause 5(A) of Clause 3 of the
      said Government Circular can be invoked only where the Assistant teacher
      has not completed three years period after his appointment in the school on
      unaided basis and that he has not received approval to his services as an
      Assistant Teacher on regular basis.”


7.      In the present case, it is undisputed that the Petitioner has

completed three years probation period as Shikshan Sevak. The

Petitioner satisfies the criteria for being granted approval as Assistant

Teacher on regular pay scale. Applying the settled position in law to the

present case, the impugned order is clearly unsustainable. Though, it is

sought to be contended by learned AGP that the requirement is of five

years, the issue has now been settled by the judicial decisions of this

Court. As the Petitioner has completed probation period of three years,

upon her transfer to an aided post, she is entitled to approval as an

Assistant Teacher in the regular pay scale.

8.      Resultantly, the impugned order dated 31 st August, 2019, is

quashed and set aside. The Education Officer is directed to grant

approval for the transfer of the Petitioner from the unaided post to the

aided post in the regular pay scale as an Assistant Teacher within a


Arya Chavan                             4 of 5
                                                        18-WP-4991-2023.doc


period of two weeks from today. The arrears of salary to be released

within a period of four weeks thereafter. The Petition is allowed.

9.      Applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand

disposed of.




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




Arya Chavan                      5 of 5