Bombay High Court

MS. VAISHALI AGATRAO JADHAV ALIAS VAISHALI DHANAJI GAIKWADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPT. AND ANR

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The order of 3 April 2023 rejecting the appointment is quashed and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration.

Summary

The petitioner, Vaishali Agatrao Jadhav, challenged the Education Officer's order dated 3 April 2023 rejecting her appointment as an assistant teacher. The rejection was based on three grounds: non‑submission of a roster, a purported ban on recruitment, and lack of explanation for delay. The petitioner argued that the recruitment ban cited (Government Resolution of 4 May 2020) was irrelevant because her appointment dated 1 July 2014 pre‑dated the ban, and that the ban does not apply to Science teachers. The Court examined the temporal mismatch and the specific subject‑wise exemption, finding the Education Officer had erred in applying the ban. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order, remitted the proposal for fresh consideration, and directed the officer to address any remaining deficiencies within six weeks. The petition was disposed accordingly.

Issues considered

Whether the Education Officer was justified in rejecting the appointment proposal on the ground of a recruitment ban that was not in force at the time of the 2014 appointment.
Whether the failure to submit a roster and the alleged delay constitute valid reasons for rejection.
Whether the recruitment ban under the 2020 Government Resolution applies to appointments for the subject of Science.

Subjects

appointment
recruitment ban
education officer
writ petition
administrative law
subject‑wise exemption

Judgment

                                                          85 wp-8088-2025(c).doc




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

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 8088 OF 2025

Vaishali Agatrao Jadhav.                             ...Petitioner.
         Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others.                 ...Respondents.

                                 ——————
Mr. Sagar Mane, Rushikesh D. Jagadale and Neha A. Farakate for the Petitioner.
Mr. R. P. Kadam, AGP for the Respondent-State.
                                 ——————

                                   Coram :     Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                               Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                   Date      : October 5, 2026.
P. C. :

1.         By the present petition, order of 3 rd April 2023 passed by the

Education Officer rejecting the proposal seeking approval to the

appointment of Petitioner to the post of assistant teacher has been

impugned.


2.         Mr. Sagar Mane, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner

would submit that approval came to be rejected on the grounds that (1)

roster has not been submitted; (2) that as of date, there was ban on

recruitment and; (3) no explanation has been given for delay in

submitting proposal. He would submit that insofar as the rejection on

the Ground No.2 is concerned, the Petitioner has been appointed in the


Patil-SR                            1 of 3
                                                    85 wp-8088-2025(c).doc


year 2014 and the Education Officer has considered the Government

Resolution of 4th May 2020 issued by the Finance Department imposing

ban on recruitment. He would submit that insofar as Ground Nos. 1 and

3 are concerned, appropriate explanation will be submitted by the

management.


3.         Upon perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the

Education Officer has taken into consideration Government Resolution

dated 4th May 2020 whereas the appointment of Petitioner to the post

of assistant teacher was of 1 st July 2014.     It would therefore be

appropriate if the impugned order dated 3 rd April 2023 is quashed and

set aside and proposal is remitted to the file Education Officer, to be

considered afresh. The Education Officer to take into consideration the

fact that appointment of Petitioner is of the year 2014 and to ascertain

whether at the time of appointment of Petitioner, there was ban on the

recruitment. The Education Officer to examine the proposal afresh and

in event there are any further deficiencies, the same be communicated

to the management and give an opportunity to the management to cure

those deficiencies. The Education Officer to also consider that the

Petitioner has been appointed as assistant teacher for the subject of

Science and the ban imposed by Government Resolution dated 2 nd May

2012 does not apply where the appointment of teacher is made for the




Patil-SR                        2 of 3
                                                             85 wp-8088-2025(c).doc


subjects of English, Mathematics and Science. The entire exercise to be

completed within a period of six weeks from today.


4.         The Petition is disposed of in the above terms.




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




Patil-SR                             3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…