SUDHAKAR RAMRAO AHIRRAOversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:30043-DB


                                                (1)                    WP 5743 OF 2015


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                                                                District : Dhule

                                WRIT PETITION NO.5743 OF 2015

                 Sudhakar Ramrao Ahirrao,
                 Age : 45 Years, Occupation : Nil,
                 R/o. : Devbhane,
                 Taluka & District : Dhule.                      …...PETITIONER

                 VERSUS

           1.    State of Maharashtra,
                 Through Principal Secretary,
                 Secondary & Higher Secondary
                 Education Department, Mantralaya,
                 Mumbai – 32.

           2.    The Deputy Director of Education,
                 Nasik Division, Nasik.

           3.    The Education Officer (Secondary),
                 Zilla Parishad, Dhule.

           4.    Hiraji Shravan Borse High School
                 & Junior College, Kapadane,
                 Taluka & District : Dhule,
                 Through it’s Headmaster.                        …...RESPONDENTS

           Mr. P. B. Shirsath, Advocate for Petitioner
           Mr. Ruchir S. Wani, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 – State
           Mr. Azizoddin R. Syed, Advocate for Respondent No.4


                               CORAM                  : KISHORE C.SANT AND
                                                       AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.
                               RESERVED DATE          : 17.07.2026
                               PRONOUNCED DATE : 22.07.2026
                                      (2)                        WP 5743 OF 2015


JUDGMENT (Per Ajit B. Kadethankar, J.):-

.     Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the parties for final

disposal by their consent.


1.    The petitioner has filed this petition with following substantive prayers :

            “(B) Issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of
            certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside the order
            dated 28.01.2015 passed by the Respondent No.3,
            Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule and
            for that purpose issue necessary writ, order or directions.
            (C) Issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of
            mandamus thereby directing the Respondent No.3, the
            Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule to
            absorb and accommodate the Petitioner on the post of
            Shikshan Sevak in any school under his control and for that
            purpose issue necessary writ, order or directions.”

FACTS IN BRIEF :

(a)   The petitioner is qualified with a graduation degree as Bachelor of Arts

i.e. B.A. with English, and also a Bachelor’s degree in Education i.e. and B.Ed.

      Vide an appointment order dated 01.11.2006, the petitioner was

appointed as Shikshan Sevak at respondent No.4 - Hiraji Shravan Borse High

School, Kapadane, Taluka and District Dhule.

(b)   The appointment was for a period of three years commencing with

effect from 06.11.2006. It is not in dispute that the appointment was made

through proper procedure.
                                     (3)                       WP 5743 OF 2015


(c)   Pursuant to the appointment, the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla

Parishad, Dhule approved petitioner's appointment vide approval dated

20.04.2007.

(d)   On 29.12.2008, the Education Officer reduced four divisions in Hiraji

Shravan Borse High School consequent to students strength            verification.

Consequently, five posts of trained graduate teachers, two posts of trained

non-graduate teachers, and one post of part-time graduate teacher came to be

cancelled.

(e)   In the light of the above, respondent No.4 - the School Management

discharged the petitioner from service on 31.12.2008.

(f)   It appears that the School Management filed Writ Petition No.4118 of

2009 before this Court against the reduction of school divisions. In the said

writ petition, a status quo order came to be passed on 08.03.2010.

(g)   On 22.07.2011, the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,

Dhule informed the Headmaster of Hiraji Shravan Borse High School to

reinstate the petitioner and five other teachers with retrospective effect in

view of Status Quo order.

(h)   On 06.07.2012, the Education Officer again addressed a communication

to the Headmaster, thereby cancelling the letter dated 22.07.2011 instructing

to re-instate the petitioner.
                                       (4)                       WP 5743 OF 2015


(i)     Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.10227 of

2014 before this Court.

(j)     This Court, vide order dated 18.11.2014, disposed of Writ Petition

No.10227 of 2014 by permitting the petitioner to make a comprehensive

representation to the Education Officer describing his grievance. Further

directions were issued to the Education Officer to decide such representation

after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a stipulated

time.

(k)     Accordingly, on 28.11.2014 the petitioner appealed to the Education

Officer seeking redressal of this grievance. The Education Officer conducted a

hearing pursuant to the grievance lodged by the petitioner. Vide order dated

28.01.2015, the Education Officer rejected the representation filed by the

petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

SUBMISSIONS :

(a)     Mr. P. B. Shirsath, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that

there is no dispute as regards the qualification of the petitioner, nor is there

any objection as regards the legality of the selection process under which he

was appointed as Shikshan Sevak.

(b)     He submits that the petitioner's services were duly approved by the

Education Officer.
                                       (5)                        WP 5743 OF 2015


(c)   Under these circumstances, according to him the petitioner was not

liable to be discharged from service. The petitioner had completed 26 months

of service and therefore, it was incumbent upon the Education Officer to

immediately absorb the petitioner on any vacant post in any school under his

jurisdiction.

(d)   He would further submit that the Zilla Parishad authorities were

required to adhere to the guidelines laid down in the Government Resolution

dated 10.06.2005. He submits that he ought to have been declared as surplus

and then ought to have been absorbed immediately on a suitable vacant post

in any school falling within the jurisdiction of the Zilla Parishad Dhule.

(e)   Mr. Shirsath’s alternate submission is that the Zilla Parishad authorities

were under an obligation at least to reappoint the petitioner whenever

vacancies became available. The Government Resolution dated 07.01.2005

clearly provides if a Shikshan Sevak has completed one year of service, he

should not be discharged, but orders should be issued for his reappointment.

(f)   On this basis, Mr. Shirsath submits that it was incumbent upon the

Education Officer to reappoint the petitioner in any school in the District with

effect from 01.01.2009 and to grant him the regular pay scale upon

completion of three years as Shikshan Sevak.
                                     (6)                       WP 5743 OF 2015


(g)   Mr. Shirsath invited our attention to page No.50 of the paper-book,

being a communication addressed by the Education Officer to the learned

Assistant Government Pleader appearing before this Court. According to him,

paragraph 3 of the said communication clearly indicates that vacancies were

available on which the petitioner could have been accommodated.

(h)   Mr. Ruchir S. Wani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for

the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule, opposed the petition.

He submits that the authority has filed an affidavit-in-reply demonstrating

why the petitioner's prayer cannot be accepted.

(i)   Mr. Wani submits that the petitioner was not entitled to absorption for

want of completion of three years as Shikshan Sevak.

(j)   It is his further contention that even reappointment was not possible

owing to the gap between the date on which the petitioner became surplus

and the proposed reappointment.

(k)   Mr. Wani submits that the provision relied upon by the petitioner from

the Government Resolution dated 07.01.2005 relates only to counting past

service of a Shikshan Sevak for a fresh appointment. He submits that the

petitioner failed to make his own efforts for reappointment as contemplated

under Clause 4 of the Government Resolution dated 10.06.2005 and

therefore, his previous service cannot be taken into consideration. According
                                      (7)                        WP 5743 OF 2015


to him, there is a gap of at least six years, i.e. from 31.12.2008 to 31.12.2014.

Hence, in view of Clause 5 of the Government Resolution dated 10.06.2005,

reappointment could not have been granted after the lapse of three years.

(l)   On these grounds, Mr. Wani prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

(m)   Mr. Syed, learned advocate appearing for the School Management,

submitted that as per the observations of the Education Officer, there was no

vacancy in respondent No.4-School on which the petitioner could be

accommodated.

CONSIDERATIONS :

2.    We have heard the learned advocates including the learned Assistant

Government Pleader for the respective parties at length. Indeed, there is no

dispute as regards petitioner's qualification and the legality of his

appointment. The petitioner had hardly completed 26 months on the post of

Shikshan Sevak when, on account of reduction of divisions in the School and

cancellation of posts, he was discharged from service. Obviously, the letter

dated 22.07.2011 issued by the Education Officer directing the Headmaster to

reinstate the petitioner with retrospective effect could not be justified. The

petitioner had already been relieved from service much before the passing of

the status quo order. Hence, we find that the subsequent letter dated

06.07.2012 issued by the Education Officer, thereby cancelling the earlier
                                          (8)                           WP 5743 OF 2015


letter dated 22.07.2011, cannot be faulted.


3.    During the course of hearing, Mr. Shirsath, raised another contention

that the petitioner ought to have been at least reappointed by the Education

Officer in view of Clause 5 of the Government Resolution dated 10.06.2005.

This is a situation where both the parties are relying upon the very same

provision i.e. Clause 5 of the Government Resolution dated 10.06.2005. While

the Education Officer has held that more than six years had elapsed from the

date of the petitioner's discharge from service, therefore, he would fall outside

the purview of Clause 5. Mr. Shirsath, learned advocate sincerely submits that

the petitioner had immediately approached this Court by filing Writ Petition

No.10227 of 2014 challenging the letter/order dated 06.07.2012.

      Clause 5 of the government resolution dated 10.06.2005 is reproduced

as below for ready reference:

      ^mijksDr (4) uqlkj vfrfjDr BjysY;k f’k{k.klsodkus iqufuZ;qDrhlkBh Lor% iz;Ru

      dj.ks vko’;d jkghy- vfrfjDr Bj.ks o iqufuZ;qDrh ;ke/khy [kaM deky rhu

      o”kkZis{kk tkLr vlw u;s- vlY;kl] R;kph iqohZph f’k{k.klsod Eg.kwu dsysyh lsok

      lsokfuo`RrhlkBh xzká /kjyh tk.kkj ukgh- rlsp R;kph iqUgk rhu o”kkZlkBh

      f’k{k.klsod Eg.kwup fu;qDrh dj.;kr ;koh-*


4.    We find that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition

No.10227 of 2014 on 18.11.2014, the petitioner immediately filed an appeal
                                     (9)                       WP 5743 OF 2015


before the Education Officer on 28.11.2014, within the limitation given by this

Court. The said appeal came to be rejected by the Education Officer on

28.01.2015, against which the present petition has been filed. We find that the

petitioner was diligently pursuing his remedy, firstly before this Court and

subsequently before the Education Officer, for enforcement of his right. Such

proceedings, in our view constitute petitioner's bona fide efforts for seeking

reappointment under Clause 5 of the Government Resolution dated

10.06.2005.


5.    We are conscious of the fair submissions advanced by Mr. Shirsath,

learned advocate that although the petitioner could not be absorbed on

account of his failure to complete three years' service as a Shikshan Sevak, he

could at least be considered for reappointment in view of government

resolution dated 07.01.2005. As per the said government resolution of

07.01.2005, on account of reduction in students strength if school divisions

are reduced retrenching services of a Shikshan Sevak, he would be entitled for

regular pay scale upon his re-appointment. As such, his previous services need

to be counted for completion of 03 years on the post of Shikshan Sevak.


6.    A comprehensive reading of Rule 26 under the Maharashtra Employees

of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules 1981 provides that a Shikshan
                                      ( 10 )                    WP 5743 OF 2015


Sevak/Assistant Teacher must have completed the probation period for being

declared as surplus for absorption. Then and then only such employee can be

subjected for absorption. We have keenly gone through the observations

recorded by the Education Officer in the impugned order dated 28.01.2015.

We are satisfied with the reasoning assigned by the Education Officer that the

petitioner could not be absorbed for want of completion of three years' service

i.e. for want of being a permanent employee. Consequently, the petitioner

could not be directed to be absorbed. However, we express that we are not

satisfied with the reasons recorded by the Education Officer while holding that

the petitioner was not entitled to reappointment on account of delay. Clause 5

of the government resolution dated 10.06.2005 nowhere dis-entitles an

employee for re-appointment on account of delay. It is clearly provided that

only if there is delay of more than three years, the previous service of such

employee shall not be considered for pensionary benefits, and that such

employee’s initial three years on re-appointment post shall be of Shikshan

Sevak.


7.    We feel that the petitioner's conduct of immediate approaching to this

Court by filing Writ Petition No.10227 of 2014, followed by the appeal before

the Education Officer, constitutes his bona fide efforts to seek reappointment.

The Petitioner, in our considered view, is certainly entitled for re-appointment
                                        ( 11 )                       WP 5743 OF 2015


as per Clause 5 of the government resolution dated 10.06.2005. In view of our

findings that there is no delay under the said clause, his past service as

Shikshan Sevak for 26 months shall be counted for service benefit purposes.


8.         Hence, we find that the petition deserves to be partly allowed with a

direction to the Education Officer to consider petitioner's case for ‘re-

appointment’ on priority in the event a suitable vacancy of a trained graduate

teacher is available in the District in accordance with Clause 5 of the

Government Resolution dated 10.06.2005. Obviously             in such event, the

petitioner shall be entitled for the benefit under the government resolution

dated 07.01.2005.


9.    Hence, we pass following order:

                                     ORDER

      I.       Writ Petition stands partly allowed.

      II.      The    Respondent    No.2    i.e.   the   Education     Officer

      (Secondary), Zilla Parishad Dhule shall on priority re-appoint the

      Petitioner on suitable and available vacancy in any school in the

      District Dhule.

      III      In the event of such re-appointment, the Respondent No. 2

      shall count Petitioner’s past service of 26 months for service
                                     ( 12 )                    WP 5743 OF 2015


      benefits.

      IV    Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above observations.

      V.    Rule is made absolute accordingly.




[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]                        [KISHORE C. SANT J.]
PRW