PRAVIN SHRIPAL DHAVALE AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHA. THR. SEC. SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPT. AND ORS

2026:BHC-KOL:8715-DB

                                                                        908-WP-7304-2025.doc


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 7304 OF 2025
               Pravin Shripal Dhavale And Anr                            ...Petitioners
                         Versus
               The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Sec. School Education ...Respondents
               Dept. And Ors
                                                ——————
               Mr. Sagar Mane a/w Mr. Rushikesh Jagdale, Ms. Neha Farakate i/b Ms. Ashwini
               Bandiwadekar, for the Petitioner.
               Ms. Tejas Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State.
                                                ——————
                                                  Coram :     SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
                                                              NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
                                                  Date      : SEPTEMBER 09, 2026
               P. C. :

               1.        By the present Petition, the challenge is to the impugned order

               dated 23rd May, 2022 passed by the Education Officer, Respondent No.

               3, rejecting the proposal submitted for the appointment of the

               Petitioner to the post of peon on the basis of Government Resolutions

               (“GR”) dated 28th January, 2019 and 11th December, 2020.

               2.        The facts of the case are that the Petitioner No. 2 school had two

               sanctioned posts of peon, and one of the posts, which was occupied by

               Shri S. V. Dhavale became vacant upon his retirement on 30 th June, 2019.

               Petitioner No. 2, by letter dated 20 th May, 2019, requested the

               Education Officer for permission to fill the vacant seat. However, by

               letter dated 7th June, 2019, permission was refused on the basis of the



               Arya Chavan                         1 of 6
                                                       908-WP-7304-2025.doc


GR dated 28th January, 2019, stating that separate orders were required

to be issued by the Government regarding the staffing pattern of Class

IV employees. Prior to the communication dated 7 th June, 2019 refusing

permission, Petitioner No. 2 had published an advertisement on 2 nd

June, 2019 inviting applications for teaching posts as well as the post of

peon sanctioned on aided basis, in response to which Petitioner No. 1

was selected. Petitioner No. 1 joined the services of Petitioner No. 2

with effect from 1st July, 2019. The proposal was submitted to

Respondent No. 3 on 5th December, 2019, pursuant to which the

impugned order was passed rejecting the approval.

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

the application seeking permission to issue advertisement was sent on

20th May, 2019, which request was rejected on 7 th June, 2019, prior to

which on 2nd June, 2019, the advertisement was already issued. He

submits that Petitioner No. 1 cannot be faulted for inaction on part of

the Education Officer to respond promptly to the application seeking

permission for advertisement. He would further point out the staffing

pattern at page 26 for the year 2019-2020, reflecting two aided

sanctioned posts, one of which became vacant upon retirement of Shri

Dhavale. He submits that rejection of the approval is on the basis of GRs

dated 28th January, 2019 and 11th December, 2020, which was

considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of


Arya Chavan                      2 of 6
                                                                         908-WP-7304-2025.doc


Vikas Shikshan Mandal And Others vs The State of Maharashtra And

Others1. The Hon'ble Division Bench held that the earlier staffing

pattern of 2005 stood superseded by the staffing pattern for Class IV

employees with effect from 11th December, 2020. He submits that in

view of the said decision, the reasons for rejection of the approval are

no longer sustainable.

4.       Per contra, learned AGP would submit that though permission to

issue the advertisement was rejected, the management went ahead and

appointed the Petitioner, for which the State should not be imposed

with the financial burden. She would further submit that on the date

when the impugned order dated 23rd May, 2022 was passed, the GRs

dated 28th January, 2019 and 11th December, 2020 governed the field,

and accordingly, the Education Officer, being bound by the GRs, has

passed the impugned order correctly, which does not deserve any

interference.

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

6.       The impugned order rejects the proposal for approval by relying

on the GRs dated 28th January, 2019 and 11th December, 2020, which

provided that upon the staffing pattern being approved, the vacant

posts lapsed. In case of Vikas Shikshan Mandal And Others vs The

State of Maharashtra And Others (supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench

1    WP NO. 6812 of 2024 decided on 02/02/2026(High Court Circuit Bench at Kolhapur)


Arya Chavan                                 3 of 6
                                                                   908-WP-7304-2025.doc


among other points, framed the following point for consideration :

      “(iii) Changes in the staffing patterns in the private schools, effects of the
      Government Resolution dated 23.10.2013, 12.02.2015, 28.01.2019, and
      12.12.2020, and fate of the appointments made during the transition of the
      policies on staffing patterns.”


7.      The GRs dated 28th January, 2019 and 12th December, 2020 were

also under consideration. The Hon'ble Division Bench noted that the

staffing pattern of 2013 was never implemented. It further considered

that the Government introduced another GR on 28 th January, 2019, by

which new staffing pattern was introduced based on the suggestions

advanced by a committee constituted under a GR of 2015, however, this

GR of 2019 specifically excluded the staffing pattern for Class IV

category employees in private schools.

8.      After considering the staffing pattern for Class IV category

employees introduced by the GR dated 11th December, 2020, the

Hon'ble Division Bench held that the GR of 2020 became operational

with effect from date of its issuance i.e. 11th December, 2020. It held

that the staffing pattern of 2005 stood superseded by new staffing

pattern for Class IV employees only with effect from 11 th December,

2020. In view of the said decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench, the

reasons for rejecting approval are clearly unsustainable. It cannot be

disputed that when the impugned order was passed, the GRs dated 28 th

January, 2019 and 11th December, 2020 were governing the field, and



Arya Chavan                             4 of 6
                                                        908-WP-7304-2025.doc


the Education Officer was bound by them. However, in view of the

decision in the case of Vikas Shikshan Mandal And Others vs The State

of Maharashtra And Others (supra), the reasons are no longer

sustainable, and the impugned order is therefore, required to be

quashed and set aside.

9.      The next question to be considered is whether the release of the

grant-in-aid salary should be with effect from the date of appointment

or from the date of order of this Court. Learned AGP has rightly pointed

out that though the Education Officer rejected the application seeking

permission to publish the advertisement, the Petitioner No. 2

management has appointed Petitioner No. 1. Though it is sought to be

contended that the rejection was on the basis of GR dated 28 th January,

2019, which is now clarified by the decision in the case of Vikas

Shikshan Mandal And Others vs The State of Maharashtra And Others

(supra), it cannot be lost sight of, that despite specific rejection by the

Education Officer, the management has proceeded to appoint

Petitioner No. 1. Even if the request was made by letter dated 20 th May,

2019 which is not placed on record, once the Education Officer had

rejected the application, the appropriate course for the management

was to approach this Court seeking necessary permission for

appointment of the Petitioner. Instead, the Petitioner No. 2 proceeded

to appoint Petitioner No. 1 with effect from 1st July, 2019.


Arya Chavan                      5 of 6
                                                        908-WP-7304-2025.doc


10.     The staffing pattern annexed at page 26 of the Petition for the

year 2019-2020, published on 21st September, 2021, shows two vacant

posts. The GR dated 28th January, 2019 prohibited the filling of posts

unless the staffing pattern was approved, which was approved in the

year 2021. As the staffing pattern was approved in 2021, the

appointment of the Petitioner as per the staffing pattern is in

accordance with the staffing pattern. However, the Petitioner will not

be entitled to grant-in-aid salary for the period from 1 st July, 2019 till

September 2021, i.e. the date of approval of staffing pattern.

11.     In light of the discussion above, the impugned order dated 23 rd

May, 2022 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 3 is directed to

grant approval to the Petitioner's appointment with effect from 1 st July,

2019 for a period of three years on payment of monthly honorarium

from October 2021 till July 2022, and further approval as a peon on

payment of monthly salary in regular pay scale with effect from 1 st July,

2022 within a period of three weeks from today. Respondent No. 2 to

include the name of Petitioner No. 1 in Shalarth Pranali and issue

Shalarth ID as a peon within a period of three weeks thereafter,

followed by proportionate release of grant-in-aid as per this order

within a period of three weeks thereafter.




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


Arya Chavan                      6 of 6