SANGEETA NANDLAL PAWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:38130-DB
                                        1                    901.WP.8009-2025.doc



                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         WRIT PETITION NO. 8009 OF 2025

             Sangeeta Nandlal Pawar
             Age-53 years, Occu: Service,
             R/o. Dattanagar, Shrirampur,
             Tq.Shrirampur, District Ahilyanagar                     ...Petitioner


                                      VERSUS

             1.    The State of Maharashtra
                   Through its Principal Secretary,
                   School Education and Sports Department,
                   Mantralaya, Mumbai

             2)    The Education Officer [Primary],
                   Zilla Parishad, Ahilyanagar,
                   District Ahilyanagar

             3)    The Superintendent,
                   Pay and Provident Fund Unit (Primary),
                   Zilla Parishad, Ahilyanagar

             4)    Shankarrao Gaikwad Gramin Education Society,
                   Shrirampur, through its President,
                   C/o Sau. Subhadrabai Baburao Gaikwad
                   Primary School, Ward No.1, Shrirampur,
                   District Ahilyanagar.                        ...Respondents

                                       ******

                Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Santosh S. Jadhavar
                    AGP for Respondent/State : Mr.V.M. Kagne
           Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 : Mr. Sachin B. Munde
        Advocate for Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Pradeep G. Tambade (Absent)

                                       ******
                               2                            901.WP.8009-2025.doc



                            WITH
            CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10908 OF 2025
              Sunanda Barku Shelke And Others
                            Vs.
            The State Of Maharashtra And Others
                             …
                           ******

   Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Pokharkar Darshan Dinkar
       AGP for Respondent/State : Mr.V.M. Kagne
 Advocate for Original Petitioner : Mr. Santosh S. Jadhavar
Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 : Mr. Sachin B. Munde

                              ******


                        CORAM       : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                      ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                  RESERVED ON : 29.07.2026
                PRONOUNCED ON : 24.08.2026

FINAL ORDER : ( PER : ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)
.      Heard.

2.     By this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking following main

reliefs :

     “B) By issuing appropriate writ, order or direction, it may kindly be
     hold and declared that, after revocation of suspension of petitioner
     by the respondent No.4 management by way of Resolution dated
     10.09.2024 and after petitioner's reinstatement in service, an order
     from the office of respondent No.2 regarding continuation of
     approval granted to her appointment is not necessary.

     C) By issuing appropriate writ, order or direction, respondent No.2
     may kindly be directed to grant approval to the appointment of
     petitioner as the Headmistress of the school namely
     Sau.Subhadarabai Baburao Gaikwad Primary School, Shrirampur,
     District Ahilyanagar, a school run by respondent No.4.
                               3                           901.WP.8009-2025.doc




     D) By issuing writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order
     or direction, respondent No.2 and 3 may kindly be directed to accept
     salary bills of the employees of the school namely Sau.
     Subhadarabai Baburao Gaikwad Primary a school run by School,
     Shrirampur, District Ahilyanagar, respondent No.4 management,
     under the signature of petitioner.
     E) By issuing writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order
     or direction, respondent No.2 and 3 may kindly be directed to pay
     unpaid salary of the petitioner from June 2024 till this date.”


3.    It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as an

Assistant Teacher in respondent No.4/School on 01.06.1994 after

following due procedure of law. Thereafter, she was appointed as

Headmistress in the said school. She was granted the pay-scale of

post of Headmistress w.e.f. 05.06.2003. On 12.06.2024, Crime No. 611

of 2024 came to be registered against her at Shrirampur City Police

Station for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention

of Corruption Act, 1988. Respondent No.4/School placed her under

suspension by order dated 13.06.2024. It is further case of the

petitioner that the respondent No.4 held a preliminary enquiry against

her for the said charges, wherein it was revealed that she was falsely

implicated in the said case. Respondent No.4 therefore, decided to

revoke her suspension. She was accordingly reinstated on the post

of Headmistress w.e.f. 11.09.2024. Even after registration of FIR, and

placing her under suspension, her approval was neither discontinued

nor withdrawn by the office of respondent No.2/Education Officer.
                            4                           901.WP.8009-2025.doc



Respondent No.4, however, submitted a fresh proposal seeking

continuation of approval to her appointment. Pursuant to the said

proposal   submitted   by       respondent   No.   4,    respondent            No.

2/Education Officer sought guidance from the Deputy Director of

Education. Despite repeated correspondence, no steps for grant of

approval or release of her salary is taken by respondent Nos. 2 and 3,

therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court.


4.   Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact there

was no necessity to submit a proposal for continuation of approval to

the service of the petitioner however, respondent No. 4, for the

reasons best known submitted a fresh proposal. He further submits

that once having found that the charges levelled against the

petitioner were baseless, in view of the provisions of Rule 35 read

with Rule 41 of The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools

(Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short, ‘the Rules, 1981’),

continuation of suspension of the petitioner beyond a period of 120

days is impermissible and the petitioner is deemed to have been

continued in service after the expiry of 120 days therefore, she is

entitled for all the consequential benefits. In support of his

submissions, he relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of

Geeta Shridhar Gadre vs. Brahman Shikshan Mandal through Its
                            5                          901.WP.8009-2025.doc



Chairman,Thane and Others reported in 2007 (5) Mh.L.J.116 and in

the case of Hamid Khan Nayyar s/o. Habib Khan vs. Education

Officer, Amravati and others reported in 2004 (4) Mh.L.J. 513. He,

therefore, urged that the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.


5.    Per contra, learned AGP, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and learned counsel appearing for

intervenors opposed the Writ Petition. It is submitted that the

petitioner   has     committed      several    illegalities.    She           has

misappropriated a huge amount of salaries of the employees and the

Scholarships of the students. Even after her reinstatement, one more

crime is registered against her alleging misappropriation and

extortion of money. This conduct of the petitioner is detrimental to

the interest of respondent No.4/Education institution as well as the

School. A thorough enquiry was conducted in respect of misdeeds of

the petitioner. It was revealed in the said enquiry that the petitioner

has embezzled a huge amount in connivance with the office bearers

of respondent No. 4. Due to these illegalities, respondent No. 2 has

submitted a proposal to the Director of Education (Primary), thereby

recommending appointment of Administrator on the respondent

No.4/Education Institution. It is, therefore, urged that the Writ Petition

deserves to be dismissed.
                           6                         901.WP.8009-2025.doc




6.    We have heard rival submissions advanced by both the sides

and perused the record.

7.    At the outset, as far as the judgment relied upon by the learned

counsel for the petitioner in the case of Geeta Shridhar Gadre

(supra) and     Hamid Khan Nayyar s/o. Habib Khan (supra) is

concerned, there is no dispute about the legal position that, an

employee cannot be placed under suspension beyond a period of 120

days and if it is done, the employee put under suspension is deemed

to have been continued in service. However, it is a matter of record

that, an offence has been registered against the petitioner for

misappropriation of the amount of salary of the employees and the

Scholarship of the students. The record further reveals that there are

at least 9 criminal cases pending against the petitioner regarding

misappropriation, extortion, and preparing false records etc which

depicts that, the petitioner’s conduct is detrimental to the interest of

the school as well as the Educational Institution. Due to serious

illegalities committed by the petitioner, the authorities have been

constrained to recommend appointment of Administrator on

respondent No.4/Education Institution and the School.

8.    In the light of above, we are of the considered view that the

petitioner has not disclosed about pendency of criminal cases
                           7                           901.WP.8009-2025.doc



against her, hence she has suppressed material facts, therefore, she

has not approached this Court with clean hands. Considering the

pendency of criminal cases and the serious allegations against the

petitioner, she does not deserve the discretionary relief. In the

peculiar facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason to

exercise our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Writ Petition being devoid of any substance deserves to be

dismissed. We, therefore, pass the following order :

                                ORDER


    i) The Writ Petition is dismissed.


    ii) Pending Civil Application (s) also stand disposed of.




 ( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. )          ( NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI , J. )



vsj..