SIDDHESHWAR SHIKSHAN SANSTHA THR ITS PRESIDENT THOU PRESIDENT/SECRETARYversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SPORTS DEPT. THOU SECRETARY

                                                        909 wp-7946-2022(c).doc


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 7946 OF 2022

Siddheshwar Shikshan Sanstha and Others.            ...Petitioners.
        Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others.                ...Respondents.
                            ——————
Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioner.
Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State.
                                  ——————
                                    Coram :    Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                               Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                    Date     : September 23, 2026.
P. C. :

1.         By the present petition, challenge is to the order dated 17 th

January 2022 by which the Education Officer has held that the proposal

submitted seeking approval to the appointment of Petitioner on the

post of junior clerk cannot be granted.

2.         The contention of learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is

that proposal has been rejected on the ground of Government

Resolution dated 4th May 2020, which imposes restrictions on

consideration of proposals during the Covid pandemic on account of

financial constraints. He submits that the Petitioner’s appointment is of

the year 2014 and it is only the proposal which was submitted in the

year 2022 and therefore Government Resolution dated 4 th May 2020

would not apply to the Petitioner’s case.


Patil-SR                            1 of 4
                                                       909 wp-7946-2022(c).doc


3.         Per contra Ms. Kapre, learned AGP would submit that by reason of

the Government Resolution dated 4th May 2020, the Education Officer

did not consider the proposal at all and has thereby rejected the

proposal. She would submit that by reason of restrictions imposed by

Government Resolution dated 4th May 2020, the proposal came to be

rejected. She submits that it would be appropriate if the proposal is

remitted to the file of Education Officer so that the Education Officer

can consider the same afresh.

4.         We have perused the impugned order dated 17 th January 2022.

The impugned order makes mention of Government Resolution dated

6th February 2012 which directs permission to be taken prior to the

issuance of advertisement. The impugned order merely makes mention

of the said Government Resolution without examining whether such

procedure was followed by the management before appointing the

Petitioner. Paragraph no.2 of the impugned order makes a specific

reference to the Government Resolution dated 4 th May 2020 and

records that the said Government Resolution specifically restricts any

decision to be taken on the approval in event recruitment is made. It is

by reason of the restriction imposed by Government Resolution dated

4th May 2020, that the Education Officer has not considered the

proposal for grant of approval to the appointment of Petitioner and has

rejected the same.


Patil-SR                            2 of 4
                                                        909 wp-7946-2022(c).doc


5.         In our considered view, it would be appropriate if the proposal is

remitted to the file of Education Officer to be considered afresh as the

impugned order does not indicate consideration of the proposal and

rejects the proposal only on the ground of Government Resolution

dated 4th May 2020.          While adjudicating the proposal afresh, the

Education Officer to take into consideration the fact that the Petitioner

has been appointed in the year 2014 and therefore the Government

Resolution dated         4th May 2020 would not apply to the case of

Petitioner. The Government Resolution dated 4th May 2020 places

restrictions only in event of new recruitment after the issuance of said

Government Resolution. The Education Officer to consider whether the

appointment of Petitioner is in accordance with the prescribed

procedure. The Education Officer to also take into consideration the

fact that though the Petitioner claims to have been appointed in the

year 2014, the proposal has been submitted in the year 2022 and take a

decision accordingly in accordance with law.

6.         In the light of above, the impugned order is quashed and set

aside. The proposal is remitted to the file of Education Officer, to be

considered afresh in the light of observations made in the present

order, expeditiously and in any event within a period of eight weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7.          In case of approval being granted, the Deputy Director of


Patil-SR                             3 of 4
                                                         909 wp-7946-2022(c).doc


Education to include name of the Petitioner in the Shalarth Pranali and

issue Shalarth ID within a period of 3 weeks thereafter. Arrears of

grant-in-aid salary to be released from the date of submission of

proposal, within a period of three weeks thereafter.

8.         The petition is disposed of in the above terms.



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




Patil-SR                             4 of 4