Bombay High Court

JAMEELA BANO MAHMUDUL HASAN AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU THE SECRETARY, DEPT. OF EDU. AND SPORTS AND ORS

Decided: 18 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court held that the management must submit a fresh proposal complying with all the identified requirements, and the Education Officer must consider it after a hearing, thereby disposing of the petitions.

Summary

The petitioners, who are assistant teachers, challenged the Education Officer’s refusal to approve their appointments, citing a communication dated 22‑12‑2022 that raised sixteen compliance issues. The Court examined the impugned communication and noted that the disputes between the managing society and its members were pending before the Charity Commissioner, but did not delve into those matters. It held that if the appointments are in accordance with the applicable rules, the management must submit a fresh proposal demonstrating compliance with each of the sixteen points, along with explanations for any deficiencies. The Court directed the management (Respondents 4 and 5) to file a new proposal within four weeks, to be considered by the Education Officer after a hearing and verification of documents. The petitions were consequently disposed of without any cost, with the direction that the Education Officer must not let inter‑se disputes prejudice the petitioners.

Issues considered

Whether the appointments of the assistant teachers are legal and valid under the applicable education rules.
Whether the Education Officer’s refusal based on sixteen compliance deficiencies is justified.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to a direction for the management to submit a fresh, compliant proposal.
Whether inter‑se disputes among members of the managing society affect the validity of the appointments.

Subjects

appointment
education officer
writ petition
compliance
management
society
inter se dispute
hearing

Judgment

                                                  909_WP_642&662_2024.DOC



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 642 OF 2024

1.       Jameela Bano Mahmudul Hasan
         Age-45 years, Occ – Service,
         R/at – House No.49, Hirapanna Colony,
         Malegaon Nashik 423203

2.       More Vishal Pandit
         Age-35 years, Occ- Service
         R/at Block No.1, Room No.7,
         Nadva Road, Police Line,
         Nandurbar-425413                               ...Petitioners
               Versus
1.       The State of Maharashtra
         through the Secretary
         Department of Education and Sports
         Mantralaya Mumbai, 400001

2.       The Education Officer (Secondary)
         Zillah Parishad, Nashik

3.       Dy Director (Secondary)
         Nashik Divisional Commissioner
         Zillah Parishad, Nashik

4.       Chairman/Secretary
         through Akhlaque Ahemad Mohammad Ayyb
         SK Usman Education Society
         Malegaon

5.       Head Master
         SK Usman Education Society
         M.H.B.Colony Malegaon
         Nashik-423203                                  ...Respondents
                                   WITH
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 662 OF 2024
1.       Rizwana Bano Jamal Hashim
         Age-38 years, Occ- Service
         R/at Survey No.120, Plot No.-65
         Naurang Colony, Malegaon,
         Nashik-423203


                                  Page 1 of 5
Prasad
                                                        909_WP_642&662_2024.DOC



2.       Momin Tayyaba Kauser Ejaj Zahir
         Age-31 years, Occ- Service
         R/at Near City College
         Islampur, Malegaon,
         Nashik-423203

3.       Mohd Shoeb Akhlaque Ahmad naga
         Age-33 years, Occ-Service
         R/at Sl No.-21, Plot No.15,
         Old Agra Road,
         Ayasha Nagar Masjid Maaulana Yousuf Nagar,
         Malegaon, Nashik-423203

4.       Ashafa Badre Alam
         Age-42 yrs, Occ- Service
         R/at – House No.770, Rasoolpura,
         Malegaon, Nashik-423203

5.       Javed Iqbal Aslam Shaikh
         Age-33 yrs, Occ- Service
         R/at – Madni Nagar In front of Umar Masjid,
         Jamner Jalgaon

6.       Mehar Bano Muoninuddin
         Age-45 yrs, Occ- Service
         R/at-Plot No-7 Galli No-1 Gandhi Nagar,
         Guruwar Ward, Malegaon, Nashik-423203

7.       Monali Jagannath Hire
         Age-39 yrs, Occ- Service
         R/at- Deoghat, Malegaon,
         Nashik-423105

8.       Asma Firdauss Anis Ahamad
         Age-32 yrs, Occ- Service
         R/at-796/28, Islamabad Raviwar Ward,
         Malegaon, Nashik-423203

9.       Thakare Kishor Chintaman
         Age-32 yrs, Occ- Service
         R/at- Kalgaon, Dhamnar, Sakri, Dhule, 424310

10.      Sayma Abdul Wadud
         Age-38 yrs, Occ- Service
         R/at- House No-509, Galli No-2 M.H.B Colony,
         Malegaon, Nashik-423203


                                    Page 2 of 5
Prasad
                                                          909_WP_642&662_2024.DOC




11.      Shaikh Rizwan Ahmad Kamruddin
         Age-33 yrs, Occ- Service
         R/at-3781, Gauslaya Nagar, Kasoda
         Jalgaon-425160

12.      Sama Parveen Sultan Ahmad
         Age-37 yrs, Occ- Service
         R/at-Ghar No-928 Chuna Bhatti,
         Malegaon, Nashik-423203                             ...Petitioners

               Versus

1.       The State of Maharashtra
         through the Secretary
         Department of Education and Sports
         Mantralaya Mumbai, 400001

2.       The Education Officer (Secondary)
         Zillah Parishad, Nashik

3.       Dy Director (Secondary)
         Divisional Commissioner Nashik

4.       Chairman/Secretary
         through Akhlaque Ahemad Mohammad Ayyb
         SK Usman Education Society
         Malegaon

5.       Head Master
         SK Usman Education Society
         M.H.B.Colony Malegaon
         Nashik-423203                                       ...Respondents

                                      _______

Mr. Sanjeev B. Deore a/w Suchita J. Pawar, Arman Ansari, Aditya S. Deore and
     Shamshadali Hashmi, for Petitioners.

Ms. Priyanka B. Chavan, AGP for the Respondent – State.
Ms. Panthi Desai i/by M/s M.P. Vashi & Asso. for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

                                      _______




                                  Page 3 of 5
Prasad
                                                           909_WP_642&662_2024.DOC



                             CORAM:        G. S. KULKARNI &
                                           DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

                             DATE:         18th AUGUST 2026

P.C.

1.       We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The prayers made in these

two petitions refer to the order dated 22.12.2022 passed by the Education Officer.

The grievance of the Petitioners, who are the Assistant Teachers, is in regard to the

proposal as submitted by Respondent – Management is not approved by the

Education Officer (Secondary), Zillah Parishad, Nashik, in regard to their

appointment.

2.       We have perused the impugned communication dated 22.12.2022, which

has considered the proposals which were forwarded. There are about 16 issues

raised on the basis of which the proposal has not been accepted. It clearly appears

that there is dispute between the Management and some disputes are also subject

matter of proceedings including the change reports which are pending adjudication

before the authorities of the Charity Commissioner. We do not intend to delve

upon the issues.

3.       In the event, the Petitioners’ appointments are legal and valid and are in

accordance with the Rules, then all the credentials in that regard are required to be

submitted, as there are 16 compliances which are called for in the impugned

communication dated 22.12.2022, we are of the opinion that the clear proposal

demonstrating compliance of each and every aspect as pointed out by the

Education Officer will be required to be submitted and if something is not

warranted appropriate explanation in that regard be submitted, which would


                                   Page 4 of 5
Prasad
                                                                                  909_WP_642&662_2024.DOC



                      require the consideration of the said officer. Let Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 –

                      Management, submit a fresh proposal within a period of four weeks from today.

                      The Education officer shall consider the same in accordance with law and after

                      granting opportunity of a hearing and verification of all the documents as may be

                      submitted to the Education Officer to take an appropriate decision. We observe

                      that the Education Officer will bear in mind that any dispute inter se between the

                      members of the Society and those who are managing the educational institution

                      ought not to cause any prejudice to the Petitioner and in the event any such issues

                      apart from the other credentials being satisfied are noted the same would be

                      required to be dealt strictly as the law would mandate and not in a manner

                      prejudicial to the Petitioner.

                      4.       With the aforesaid observations, as we have directed fresh consideration, the

                      Petitions do not require further adjudication. Petitions stand disposed of in the

                      aforesaid terms. No cost.




                      (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J)                                   (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)



PRASAD
RAJENDRASING
RAJPUT


Digitally signed by
PRASAD
RAJENDRASING
RAJPUT
Date: 2026.08.21
10:24:19 +0530




                                                          Page 5 of 5
                      Prasad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…