VIKAS SHANTARAM CHANDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND ORS

                                                                                              45-WP-7511-2025.doc




          Digitally signed
          by HARISH
                                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
          VITHAL
HARISH
VITHAL
          CHAUDHARI                                  CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CHAUDHARI Date:
          2026.10.05
          12:02:47
          +0530
                                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                   WRIT PETITION NO. 7511 OF 2025

                             Vikas Shantaram Chande                                 ...Petitioner
                                       Versus
                             The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary             ...Respondents
                             And Others

                                                              ——————
                             Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioner.
                             Mr. Vikas M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent-State.
                                                              ——————
                                                                Coram :     Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                                                            Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                                                Date      : October 01, 2026.
                             P. C. :

                             1.        By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated

                             29th January, 2018 passed by the Education Oicer, seeking modiication

                             of the said order insofar as it grants approval to the transfer of the

                             petitioner to the aided post as a Shikshan Sevak instead of an Assistant

                             Teacher in the regular pay scale.

                             2.        Briely stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner came

                             to be appointed on 30th November, 2013 to the unaided post of

                             Assistant Teacher in respondent no. 7’s school. Respondent no. 5

                             approved the appointment of the petitioner on 17 th January, 2014. A

                             resolution was subsequently passed on 16 th July, 2016 by respondent



                             Harish                              1 of 4
                                                             45-WP-7511-2025.doc



no. 6 resolving to transfer the petitioner to an aided vacant post, and a

proposal was submitted seeking approval for the said transfer. On 29 th

January, 2018, respondent no. 5, Education Oicer, approved the

appointment of the petitioner as a Shikshan Sevak with efect from 16 th

July, 2016 instead of as a full-time Assistant Teacher.

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 Dilip Thorat vs State of Maharashtra [in Writ

Petition No. 168 of 2021 decided on 22 nd July, 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 ive years of service short of ive days, and therefore,

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

regular pay scale.

4.       The learned AGP would support the impugned order and submits

that as the transfer was on the aided post, the petitioner was rightly


Harish                            2 of 4
                                                                   45-WP-7511-2025.doc



appointed as a Shikshan Sevak by relying upon the GR dated 28 th June,

2016.

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

6.        The decision in the case of Sandip Dilip Thorat (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 28 th 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 Harichandra Bhande vs State of Maharashtra; [WP(ST) No.

93916 of 2020 decided on 12 th March, 2021], where it was held that

when an Assistant Teacher has already completed three years period,

there is no justiiable reason to ask the Assistant Teacher to work again

as Shikshan Sevak on consolidated pay for three years. It 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/O. Harichandra Bhande &
         Anr. (supra), where the Assistant Teacher had already completed
         three years period, there is no justiiable reason to ask the


Harish                                3 of 4
                                                                 45-WP-7511-2025.doc



         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, the petitioner was appointed to the unaided

post as an Assistant Teacher on 30 th November, 2013 and is entitled to

the beneit of the services rendered on the said post. The issue is well

settled by the judicial decisions of this Court and upon completion of

the probation period of three years, she is entitled to be appointed as

an Assistant Teacher. The impugned order appoints the petitioner as a

Shikshan Sevak with efect from 16th July 2016 without considering the

past services rendered by her and to that extent, the impugned order

dated 29th January, 2018 is hereby quashed and set aside.

8.        The Education Oicer is directed to grant approval to the transfer

of the petitioner from the unaided post to the aided post in the regular

pay scale as an Assistant Teacher within a period of two weeks from

today. As the period of three years was completed on 30 th November

2016, the arrears of salary to be released within a period of four weeks

thereafter, with efect from 30th November, 2016.

9.        The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.


 [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.]                         [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Harish                               4 of 4