Bombay High Court

SAURYA EDUCATION TRUST THR ITS PRESIDENT AND ANRversusTHE DIVISIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION MUMBAI AND ORS

Decided: 2 July 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: R I CHAGLA FARHAN P DUBASH

Holding

The consent terms are not binding on the State Education Authority, and consequently the writ petition is disposed of in accordance with those terms.

Summary

Surya Education Trust entered into consent terms with a private respondent (Respondent no.6) concerning salary claims and appointment to grant‑in‑aid posts. The Trust filed a writ petition seeking relief against the Education Authorities, while the consent terms stipulated that a prior order of the Dispute Resolution Committee would be cancelled and that the Trust would submit a proposal for the appointment of Respondent no.6. The State Education Authority was not a party to the consent terms, and the court held that the terms are not binding on it, although the Authority agreed to consider the proposal within eight weeks. Relying on the consent terms, the court disposed of the writ petition without further adjudication. The order emphasizes that agreements between private parties do not bind a government body unless it is a party to the contract.

Issues considered

Whether a consent decree entered into by private parties is binding on a government education authority that is not a party to the agreement.
Whether the order of the Dispute Resolution Committee dated 30 August 2021 is cancelled by virtue of the consent terms.

Subjects

consent terms
writ petition
education authority
grant‑in‑aid posts
dispute resolution committee
binding contract
state not party

Judgment

901. WP 7720.2022.doc
Saurya Edu.Trust vs. Divn.Dy.Director

Digitally signed
JYOTI by JYOTI
PRAKASH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
PRAKASH PAWAR
PAWAR Date: 2026.07.03
11:21:38 +0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 7720 OF 2022

Surya Education Trust through
its President and Anr. … Petitioners
V/s.
The Divisional Deputy Director of
Education, Mumbai and Ors. … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 905 OF 2020

Pooja Sheetlaprasad Upadhyay … Petitioner
V/s.
The President, Surya Education
Trust and Ors. … Respondents
_______________________________________

Mr. Mayuresh Lagu a/w. Sagar Patil for the Petitioners in WP/7720/2022
Mr. Anand Kulkarni for Respondent no.2
Ms. Deepali Peherkar for Respondent no.6
Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, Addl.G.P. a/w. Mr. V.G. Badgujar, AGP for the Respondent
in WP/7720/2022
Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, Addl.G.P. a/w. Ms. P.J. Gavhane, AGP for the Respondent
in WP/905/2020
Ms. Ruksana Hakim, Law Officer present, District Director of Education, Mumbai

_______________________________________

CORAM : R. I. CHAGLA AND
FARHAN P. DUBASH, JJ.

DATE : 02nd JULY 2026

P.C. :

1. The Petitioners and Respondent no.6 have entered into the Consent Terms

Page 1 of 3
----------------------
Order dated 02nd July 2026
901. WP 7720.2022.doc
Saurya Edu.Trust vs. Divn.Dy.Director

bearing today’s date, which is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for

identification.

2. Appended to the Consent Terms is the letter of the Secretary of the Petitioner

– Trust authorizing the signatory to the Consent Terms to execute the

Consent Terms.

3. The Respondent – State is not a party to the Consent Terms and hence the

said Consent Terms are not binding on the Respondent – State.

4. The Petitioners have filed Writ Petition No. 905 of 2020 against the

Education Authorities for release of salary from October 2018 along with

arrears thereof which, as per the Consent Terms the Petitioners will pursue.

5. The parties to the Consent Terms have in Clause 13 agreed that the impugned

order dated 30th August 2021 passed by the President, Dispute Resolution

Committee, Divisional Deputy Director, Mumbai in matter No.P-8/2021

shall stand cancelled qua the Petitioner – Management is concerned and

Respondent no.6 will pursue the said claim only against the Respondent –

Education Authorities.

6. The Petitioners have agreed and undertaken to submit an appropriate

proposal to the Respondent – Education Authorities for approval of

appointment of Respondent no.6 on the 100% grant-in-aid posts i.e. with

effect from 1st December 2025 along with all necessary documents, within a

Page 2 of 3
----------------------
Order dated 02nd July 2026
901. WP 7720.2022.doc
Saurya Edu.Trust vs. Divn.Dy.Director

period of two weeks from the date of execution of these Consent Terms. In

clause 10 of the Consent Terms, it is provided that the Respondent –

Education Authorities shall consider the proposal submitted by the

Petitioners for approval of Respondent no.6 on the 100% grant-in-aid posts,

in accordance with law and shall take appropriate decision within a period of

eight weeks from the date of receipt of such proposal.

7. The learned AGP appearing for the Respondent – Education Authorities

though stating that the Consent Terms are not binding on the Respondent –

Education Authorities, on instructions states that the Education Authorities

will consider the aforementioned proposal submitted by the Petitioners

within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such proposal. The

statement is accepted.

8. In view of these Consent Terms arrived at between the Petitioner and

Respondent no.6, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms

thereof.

( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. ) ( R. I. CHAGLA J. )

Jyoti Pawar

Page 3 of 3
----------------------
Order dated 02nd July 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…