VILAS BHASKAR SONAWANE AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                                 19 WP 7700 OF 2021 F.DOC



                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                            WRIT PETITION NO. 7700 OF 2021

                      Shri Vilas Bhaskar Sonawane and Anr.                   ...Petitioners
                             Versus
                      The State of Maharashtra,
                      Through the Secretary,
                      School Education Department,
                      Mantralaya, Mumbai & Anr.                              ...Respondents
                                                        _______
                      Mr. Vinayak R. Kumbhar and Mr. Rajendra B. Khaire i/b. Ms. Ashwini N.
                      Bandiwadekar, Advocate for the Petitioners.

                      Mr. A.C. Bhadang, AGP for Respondent – State.
                      Mr. Shrishail Sakhare, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                                           _______

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

                                                  DATE:          29th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

                      P.C.

                      1.        By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the

                      Petitioners challenge the impugned order dated 16th February, 2018, issued by the

                      Respondent No.2, refusing approval to the appointment of the Petitioner No. 1 as

                      Assistant Teacher in partly aided Minority Primary School of the Petitioner No.2

                      Institution. The Petitioner prays that the impugned order dated 16.2.2018

                      [EXHIBIT-F] issued by the Respondent No. 2 be quashed and set aside.

         Digitally
         signed by
                      Respondent No. 2 be directed to grant approval to the appointment of the
         RAJESHRI
RAJESHRI PRAKASH
PRAKASH AHER
AHER     Date:
         2026.10.09
                      Petitioner No. 1 as Assistant Teacher in the partially aided [20% aided] Primary
         15:18:15
         +0530




                                                        Page 1 of 7
                      Rajeshri Aher
                                                               19 WP 7700 OF 2021 F.DOC



School of the Petitioner No. 2 Institution w.e.f. 8.1.2018, and for release of the

grant-in-aid for payment of monthly salary to the Petitioner No. 1 from the said

date, along with arrears.



2.        The facts, which lie in a narrow compass, are Petitioner No. 1 is an Assistant

Teacher who has been employed by Petitioner No. 2, which is a Linguistic

Minority Institution (Hindi). It is running a Government-recognized primary

school in the name of Shri Mounibaba Rampati Hindi Primary School at Veer

Sawarkar Nagar, Vangni (West), Taluka - Ambernath, District - Thane. It is the

case of the Petitioners that the said school was started on a 'permanent no-grant'

basis from the year 2004. In the year 2009, it became an 'unaided school'. In the

year 2014, the school was sanctioned 20% grant-in-aid with effect from June 2012.

On 18th November, 2013, one Dipak Devidas Dewadkar (M.A., B.Ed.) was

appointed as a Graduate Teacher in the said Primary School on an unaided basis.

Respondent No. 2 - Education Officer granted approval to the said appointment

on an unaided basis. When the school started receiving 20% grant-in-aid, approval

was granted to all the Teachers, including Shri Dewadkar, by Respondent No. 2 on

a partially aided basis.


3.        On 22nd December, 2016, the Graduate Teacher, Mr. Dewadkar, submitted a

letter of resignation from the post of Graduate Teacher. The said resignation was

accepted by the Management in its meeting held on 31 st January, 2017. Since the

acceptance of the said resignation, Mr. Dewadkar has not claimed any right over

the post.


                                     Page 2 of 7
Rajeshri Aher
                                                            19 WP 7700 OF 2021 F.DOC




4.        On 27th December, 2017, Respondent No. 2 Management published an

advertisement in a newspaper inviting applications for an interview to fill the

vacancy of Graduate Teacher created by the resignation of Mr. Dipak Devidas

Dewadkar. Pursuant to the said advertisement, on 31 st December, 2017, four

candidates, including Petitioner No. 1, appeared for the interview. It is contended

that Petitioner No. 1 was born on 1 st June, 1982, he belongs to the Open Category,

and possessed the qualifications of M.A. and B.Ed., hence, he was eligible for

appointment to the said post. Accordingly, on 31 st December, 2017, Petitioner No.

1 came to be selected for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher on merits.

Accordingly, on 2nd January, 2018, an appointment order was issued to Petitioner

No. 1 on the pay scale with effect from 8 th January, 2018, Petitioner No. 1

accordingly joined the school on 8th January, 2018.


5.        On 29th January, 2018, the Headmistress of the School submitted a proposal

to Respondent No. 2 seeking approval to the appointment of Petitioner No. 1.

However, by an order dated 16th February, 2018, Respondent No. 2 refused to

grant approval to the appointment of Petitioner No. 1 on the ground of three

deficiencies referred to in the said order. Primarily, the objection raised against

Petitioner No. 1 was in regard to the resignation of Mr. Dipak Devidas Dewadkar,

which was stated to be not clear and, hence, a doubt was raised regarding the

vacancy that had arisen. The other reason being the Petitioner's appointment was

stated to be made during the academic year 2017-18, when the post was partly

aided. For that academic year, the post was not maintained as an 'approved post'

                                    Page 3 of 7
Rajeshri Aher
                                                                   19 WP 7700 OF 2021 F.DOC



under the staffing pattern and, for such reason, approval could not be granted.

According to the Petitioner, the said reason set out by the Education Officer

(Primary)/Respondent No. 2 was not acceptable and, accordingly, on 13 th March,

2018, Petitioner No. 2, as well as the Headmistress of the School, submitted a

detailed explanation to Respondent No. 2 and pointed out how all the three

deficiencies mentioned in the aforesaid order were unsustainable. Also, on behalf of

Petitioner No. 2, a notarized undertaking was submitted, requesting that approval

be granted to Petitioner No. 1. However, the said request was not considered and,

in the circumstances, the Petitioners filed the present Writ Petition.


6.        Affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2 by

Dr. Bhausaheb Karekar, Education Officer (Primary), Z.P., Thane, in which it has

been accepted that the School Management, by its letter dated 13th March, 2018,

submitted an undertaking of the Secretary of the Management on a Stamp Paper of

Rs. 100/- stating that Mr. Dewadkar had tendered his resignation and thereafter

had not returned to the school, and that the Management was ready to take

responsibility if any court case arose after the approval was granted. The relevant

contents of the affidavit are required to be noted, which read thus:


         “2.     I say that, the respondent no.2 has received the proposal from the
         Headmistress of school on 29/01/2018 for approval to the appointment of
         petitioner no.1 as asst. teacher. I say that from the documents submitted by the
         school alongwith said proposal it is found that the petitioner no.1 is appointed as
         asst teacher on the post which has become vacant due to the resignation of one asst.
         teacher at Shri. Dipak Dewadkar on 31/01/2017. I say that, the said resignation is
         on simple paper and not Notary stamp paper. It is necessary to verify the same,



                                       Page 4 of 7
Rajeshri Aher
                                                                     19 WP 7700 OF 2021 F.DOC



         otherwise there is possibility of arising court matter. I say that the appointment of
         petitioner no. l is being made in the year 2017-18 but, the newly approval cant not
         be given on partly aided basis. I further say that, it is also necessary to verify that
         whether the said post is sanctioned or not in the Sanch Manyata of the year 2016-
         17 and 2017-18. Therefore, on these defect, the approval can not be given to the
         appointment of petitioner no.1 as asst. teacher.


         3.        I say that thereafter, the school management by its vide letter dated
         13/03/2018 submitted undertaking of secretary of management on 100/- rupees
         stamp paper that said Dewadkar has given resignation and thereafter, he did not
         turn to the school. Hence, it is not possible to submit the notarized resignation of
         said Dewadkar. Therefore, the management is ready to take responsibility, if any
         court matter is arose. I say that the respondent no.2 has no power to review his own
         order.”


7.        On the aforesaid premise, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

We have also perused the record. We find substance in the contentions as urged on

behalf of the Petitioners, more particularly, on the fact that, at the relevant time,

there was a clear vacancy in lieu of the Graduate Teacher, Mr. Dipak Devidas

Dewadkar (M.A., B.Ed.), having submitted his resignation and the same being

accepted by the management. Thus, a vacancy being created on account of his

resignation, Petitioner No. 2 / Management, adopted the appropriate procedure by

issuing an advertisement and considering eligible candidates. Interviews of such

candidates were also conducted and, thereafter, upon the eligibility criteria being

satisfied, an appointment was granted in favour of the Petitioner.


8.        In these circumstances, when approval was sought, part grant-in-aid as

granted by the Zilla Parishad to the Petitioner No. 2–School was subsisting.




                                        Page 5 of 7
Rajeshri Aher
                                                            19 WP 7700 OF 2021 F.DOC



Also, by the letter dated 13th March, 2018, issued by Petitioner No. 2–

Management, clarification was given in regard to the vacancy.


9.        We find that there is no requirement in law that the resignation duly

submitted by Mr. Dipak Devidas Dewadkar (M.A., B.Ed.) should be on a Stamp

Paper. It is also clear that the post was vacant, hence the impugned communication

dated 16th February, 2018, refusing the approval, in our opinion, on any of the

reasons as set out, cannot be sustained. This is more particularly, as the

Management–Petitioner No. 2 has taken upon itself the responsibility with regard

to the resignation which was being doubted. There is no contrary material or any

other reason as to why the approval ought not to be granted, if considered in

accordance with the requirements of law.


10.       At this stage, we are informed by Mr. Sakhare, learned counsel for

Respondent No. 2, that the Petitioner is yet to clear the Teacher Eligibility Test

(TET) and that in pursuance of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust V. State of Maharashtra 1, Petitioner

No. 1 shall clear the TET, as per the directions of the Supreme Court, failing which

the consequences of termination would be required to be faced by Petitioner No. 1.

11.       In such circumstances, it was, necessary for Respondent No. 2 to grant

approval to the appointment of Petitioner No. 1.

12.       In this view of the matter, we are of the clear opinion that the petition

would be required to be allowed. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in terms of

prayer clause (b), which reads thus:

1 2025 INSC 1063


                                    Page 6 of 7
Rajeshri Aher
                                                                19 WP 7700 OF 2021 F.DOC



          ‘b]    By a suitable writ, order or directions, this Hon’ble Court be pleased
          to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 16.2.2018 [EXHIBIT-F]
          issued by the Respondent No. 2, and accordingly the Respondent No. 2 may
          be directed to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner No. 1 as
          Assistant Teacher in the partially aided [20%] Primary School of the
          Petitioner No. 2 Institution w.e.f. 8.1.2018, and to release grant-in-aid for
          payment of monthly salary to the Petitioner No. 1 from the said date,
          alongwith arrears.’


13.        Respondents to take necessary steps within a period of three weeks from the

date of receipt of this order.

14.       Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.




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




                                      Page 7 of 7
Rajeshri Aher