LAXMAN SAKHARAM SONAWANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:44178-DB




                                             (1)                 wp-6273-2018+


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 6273 OF 2018

           Keshav Janardhan Kohakade,
           Age: 46 years, Occu: Service,
           R/o. At Post-Baragaon Nandur,
           Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar.                       ….Petitioner

                             VERSUS

           1.    The State of Maharashtra
                 Through its Secretary,
                 School Education Department,
                 Mantralaya Mumbai.
           2.    Secretary,
                 Laxmi Narayan Pratisthan Shrishivaji Nagar,
                 Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar.
           3.    Head Master,
                 Shri. Sangmeshwar Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
                 Wanjulpoi, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar.
           4.    Education Officer (Secondary),
                 Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar.                   ….Respondents

                                          WITH
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 6269 OF 2018

           Laxman Sakharam Sonawane,
           Age: 49 years, Occu: Service,
           R/o. At Post-Takalimiya,
           Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar.                       ….Petitioner

                              VERSUS
                                 (2)                 wp-6273-2018+


1.   The State of Maharashtra
     Through its Secretary,
     School Education Department,
     Mantralaya Mumbai.
2.   Secretary,
     Laxmi Narayan Pratisthan Shrishivaji Nagar,
     Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar.
3.   Head Master,
     Shri. Sangmeshwar Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
     Wanjulpoi, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar.
4.   Education Officer (Secondary),
     Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar.                   ….Respondents

                             WITH
                 WRIT PETITION NO. 6393 OF 2018

Prakash Keshavrao Salunke,
Age: 47 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. At Post Manori,
Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar.                      ….Petitioner

           VERSUS

1.   The State of Maharashtra
     Through its Secretary,
     School Education Department,
     Mantralaya Mumbai.
2.   Administrative Officer,
     Laxmi Narayan Pratisthan Shrishivaji Nagar,
     Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar.
3.   Head Master,
     Shri. Sangmeshwar Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
     Wanjulpoi, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar.
                                      (3)                wp-6273-2018+


4.    Education Officer (Secondary),
      Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar.                    ….Respondents
                                   …..
Dr. Rajendra J. Godbole, Advocate for the Petitioners in all Petitions.
Ms. S. S. Joshi, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 in all Petitions.
None for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in all Petitions
                                   …..
                            CORAM               : KISHORE C. SANT,
                                                  JITENDRA S. JAIN, JJ
                            RESERVED ON          : 20th AUGUST 2026.
                            PRONOUNCED ON : 29th SEPTEMBER 2026.

ORDER :- [PER: KISHORE C. SANT, J.]


1]          Heard Dr. Godbole, learned Advocate             appearing for

petitioners, Ms. Joshi, the learned AGP for respondents No.1 and 4.

None appears for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 though served with notice

for final disposal. As the grievance is against the respondent Nos. 1 and

4, the petitions are taken up for final disposal by consent of the parties.


2]          The grievance of the petitioners in all these petitions is

common, and the respondents are also same. The petitioners claim that

they were appointed on 02.06.1996, 01.07.1996 and 02.09.1996

respectively.
                                   (4)                  wp-6273-2018+


3]         It is the case of the petitioners that though they were

appointed with respondents Nos. 2 and 3, their services were

terminated illegally. The petitioners were therefore required to file

appeals before the learned School Tribunal Pune, Region Solapur, by

filing Appeal Nos. 81/2006, 80/2006 and 83/2006, respectively. The

learned School Tribunal allowed the appeals and directed respondent-

school and the management to absorb the appellants as Assistant

Teachers in any of the school run by the management i.e. respondent

No.2. It was further directed to pay them salaries as per rules.


4]         It is the case of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that there were no

posts available at the relevant time. In 2011-2012 some posts became

available as there was increase in the strength of the students in the

school. In view of the earlier orders passed in the appeals, some of the

employees approached this Court by filing Writ Petition Nos. 6814/2009

and 6815/2009. This Court by order dated 12.01.2010 directed the

Education Officer to examine the claim of the petitioners on its merits

and to pass necessary orders. The education officer gave hearing to the
                                    (5)                   wp-6273-2018+


petitioners. After hearing, it was directed to absorb the petitioners in

service as Assistant Teachers from 01.07.2015. The petitioners are

therefore aggrieved by grant of approval from 01.07.2015 instead of the

dates of their first appointments i.e. 02.06.1996, 01.07.1996 and

02.09.1996, respectively, have approached this Court with a prayer to

direct the respondent No.4-education officer to grant the approval from

the date of their initial appointments and to forward the proposals with

corrected dates by showing their initial appointments in the year 1996.


5]          The respondents No.2 and 3 have filed their affidavit in

reply. Learned AGP has also filed a reply for respondent No.4. It is the

case of the respondent No.4 that in 1996, the petitioners were not

appointed by following due process of law and no clear posts were

available. In the School Tribunal, the Court directed only to consider the

claim of the petitioners in case vacancies arise. It is their case that there

was no vested right in the petitioners to get appointments with effect

from the dates of their initial appointments. Whenever vacancies were

created/sanctioned, the petitioners were taken into service. The
                                   (6)                 wp-6273-2018+


education officer has rightly granted the date as 01.07.2015. It is also

the case of the respondents that the petitioners were actually appointed

on 01.07.2015. It is therefore submitted that the petitions deserve to be

dismissed.


6]           Learned Advocate Dr. Godbole, appearing for the petitioners,

vehemently argued the petitions. He submitted that the petitioners were

duly appointed as Assistant Teachers in respondent No.2/management.

However, they were illegally terminated, compelling the petitioners to

approach the learned School Tribunal. The learned School Tribunal

considering the evidence and documents has rightly allowed the appeals

by considering the case of the parties. When such was the position, the

petitioners’ appointments in the year 1996 had to be considered legal.

There is nothing to show that their appointments can be said to be

illegal. It is true that immediately after this judgment, they were not

appointed and as per the directions of the learned School Tribunal, they

were to be appointed only after posts became available. However, he

submits that it needs to be considered that since the petitioners were
                                   (7)                   wp-6273-2018+


appointed in the year 1996, there was no question of giving any other

date by the respondent No.4-education officer for the purpose of

approval. He thus submits that the petitions deserve to be allowed.


7]         Learned AGP Ms. Joshi, appearing for respondents No. 1 and

4 vehemently argued that, it is a matter of record that the petitioners

were appointed only after the order passed by the respondent No.4-

education officer, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in Writ

Petition No.6623/2011. The education officer has thus rightly

considered the claim and passed appropriate orders. No interference is

required. She therefore, prays for dismissal of the petitions.

8]         It is the case of the respondents Nos.2 and 3 as seen from

their affidavit-in-reply that it is only because of the Writ Petition

No.6623/2011, the hearing was conducted by the respondent No.4-

education officer. The learned School Tribunal had directed the

management to absorb the petitioners in service as and when vacancies

arise. In view of direction by the School Tribunal, they were given

appointments. Prior to that, there was no question of appointing the

petitioners as there were no vacancies available.
                                   (8)                 wp-6273-2018+


9]         Having heard the parties, this Court has only to consider as

to whether the petitioners have made out any case to consider/treat

their services from 1996, and whether it is necessary to direct

respondents to grant approval from that date.


10]        From the record it is seen that initially the petitioners were

appointed in 1996 about which there is no dispute. The petitioners

approached the learned School Tribunal is also not in dispute. This

Court has gone through the judgment of the learned School Tribunal.

The learned School Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that the

petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers for a temporary period

and since there were no posts available, their services were terminated.

It is only because of the concession given by the respondent-school, the

learned School Tribunal passed an order dated 28.07.2011, directing

the respondents to absorb the petitioners as and when vacancies became

available. Prior to that, some other employees had approached this

Court by filing Writ Petition Nos.6814/2009 and 6815/2009. In the said

petitions, the present petitioners had filed intervention applications. In
                                    (9)                  wp-6273-2018+


those petitions, prayers were made by the employees to consider their

appointments from 1996.


11]         This Court however, directed the education officer to give an

opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties and to consider/treat

the petition as representation. It was further directed to correct the

seniority list and accord correct and fresh appointment date in view of

initial date of appointment in 1996. It is thereafter the education officer

conducted the hearing and passed the orders considering the vacancy

position.

12]         It is further seen that the petitioners thereafter filed various

representations with the respondent-school, stating that because of

wrong date of approval, they would be deprived of their service benefits

as they were appointed on non-grant-basis in 2015. However, no

decision appears to have been taken. It is the case of the petitioners that

certain similarly situated persons i.e. Chouthe Gitaram Sakharam and

More Ashok Laxman were given appointments from the year 2000-

2001. They were also holding same qualification of M.Sc, B.Ed and

M.A., B.Ed, respectively. It is the case of the petitioners that they are
                                   ( 10 )                wp-6273-2018+


also holding the qualifications such as M.A., B.P.Ed. and still their cases

were not properly considered.


13]        From the affidavit of respondent No.4, stand of the

respondent seen is that initially the appointments of the petitioners

were not on clear vacant posts. The appointments were not as per

law/rules, and therefore, there is no question of showing their dates of

appointment     as   of   02.06.1996,       01.07.1996   and   02.09.1996,

respectively. It is only in the year 2012-13 considering the strength of

the students, total five additional divisions were sanctioned. It is only

thereafter, the seven posts of teachers were sanctioned on non-grant-

basis. While passing the order, it is stated that the education officer has

also considered the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition

No.10617/2014. There is no rejoinder filed by the petitioners showing

that there were posts available even prior to 2011-12.


14]        It is also not shown that their initial appointments were

made against clear, vacant posts. The judgment of the learned School

Tribunal also shows that the appeals were allowed only on a concession
                                   ( 11 )              wp-6273-2018+


by the management that they would consider the claims of the

petitioners in case posts become available. It is seen from the record

that the petitioners have not filed any writ petition challenging the

findings recorded by the learned School Tribunal. The petitioners,

therefore, have accepted the said findings. After having accepted the

finding of the Tribunal, it is not open now for the petitioners to go back

from those findings.


15]        This Court has considered the orders passed by the

respondent No.4-education officer. The respondent No.4-education

officer has also recorded that since there were no posts available, there

was no question of granting approval to the petitioners from the year

1996. The respondent No.4-education officer has thus rightly granted

approval from 01.07.2015. No perversity is seen in the orders passed by

the respondent No.4-education officer. The petitioners have failed to

show any right vested in them. Thus, this Court does not find any merit

in the petitions. The order passed by Respondent No.4 can not be

faulted.
                                          ( 12 )                wp-6273-2018+


16]               Considering all above, this Court finds that no case is made

out calling for interference at the hand of this Court. The petitions,

therefore, stand dismissed. No order as to cost.


17]               Pending civil applications, if any, also stand disposed off.




 (JITENDRA S. JAIN, J.)                               (KISHORE C. SANT, J.)

D.A.Ethape (PA)