Bombay High Court

MANOJ RAMBHAU PATILversusTHE CHAIRMAN TAPI PURNA PARISAR VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL UCHANDE AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

A termination of a lawfully appointed employee for lack of Education Officer approval is invalid where the initial appointment was approved and the vacancy is clear and vacant.

Summary

Manoj Patil, an Other Backward Class candidate, was initially appointed as a part‑time Assistant Teacher in a government‑aided school with approval from the Education Officer. When a full‑time post became vacant due to superannuation, the school management placed him in that post without obtaining the required approval, later terminating him on the ground of lacking such approval. The petitioner challenged the termination before the School Tribunal, which held that his appointment was illegal, a view the High Court rejected. The Court found that the Education Officer’s earlier approval of the part‑time appointment remained valid, the vacancy was clear and vacant, and the ban on new appointments did not apply to fill a vacancy. Consequently, the termination order was set aside, the petitioner was reinstated, and the Education Officer was directed to grant approval and aid for arrears. The judgment also criticized the Education Officer’s failure to assist the Tribunal and directed systemic improvements.

Issues considered

The legality of terminating a permanent employee for want of approval from the Education Officer when the initial appointment had been approved.
Whether the vacancy in the full‑time Assistant Teacher post was a clear and vacant post exempt from the 2012 ban on new appointments.
Whether the lack of prior permission from the Education Officer invalidates the appointment under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 — s. 5(1), 9

Subjects

appointment
termination
education officer approval
reservation
Other Backward Class
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act
writ petition
reinstatement
government resolution

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:37926

Writ Petition No.8230 of 2024.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.8230 OF 2024

District : Jalgaon
Manoj s/o.Rambhau Patil,
Age : 37 Years, Occ. Service as
Assistant Teacher (now terminated),
r/o. Uchande, Tq. Muktainagar,
Dist.Jalgaon ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Chairman,
Tapi Purna Parisar Vidya Prasarak Mandal,
Uchande, Tq.: Muktainagar, Dist.: Jalgaon.

2. The Head Master,
Ghate Ananda Shinkar Vidyalaya Va
Kanistha Mahavidyalaya, Uchande,
Tq.: Muktainagar, Dist.: Jalgaon.

3. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. ..Respondents

----
Mr.V.S.Panpatte, Advocate for petitioner
Mr.P.G.Gunale, Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2
Mr.K.B.Jadhavar, AGP for respondent no.3
----
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : AUGUST 17, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : AUGUST 21, 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is taken

up for final disposal with the consent of learned advocate for the

parties.
2 Writ Petition No.8230 of 2024.docx

Subject-matter :

2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated

26.03.2024, passed by learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal,

Nashik, in Appeal No.105 of 2016 at (Exh.M) so also the termination

order dated 13.10.2016 issued by respondent no.1 Exh.”L”), the

petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition.

3. Brief facts:-

(i) The Petitioner was initially appointed as a part-time

Assistant Teacher on a post that was reserved for Other Backward

Class vide appointment order dated 15.10.2012. An advertisement

was published to fill up a number of posts. Candidates attended the

selection procedure and the Petitioner was appointed on one part-

time post of Assistant Teacher. The Education Officer (Secondary),

Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon accorded approval to Petitioner’s appointment

on 27.08.2014.

(ii) The approval was neither revoked nor set aside by any

authority. As such, it needs to be accepted that the appointment on

part-time basis was a lawful one.

(iii) There arose a vacancy of one full-time aided post of

Assistant Teacher reserved for Other Backward Class.
3 Writ Petition No.8230 of 2024.docx

The vacancy could arose on account of superannuation of one

Ramchandra Chaudhari, whose services were approved already.

(iv) On 07-01-2013 i.e. well in advance prior to

Mr.Chaudhari’s retirement dated 31-05-2013, the school

management moved a proposal to the Education Officer thereby

seeking permission for filling up the ensuing vacancy. Copy of the

proposal (page 28-Exh.`E’) shows that it was received by the office

of the Education Officer.

(v) It seems that the Education Officer did not respond the

application. Considering the urgency to fill up the vacancy for

welfare of the students, and that the education year was to start

soon, the respondent management issued an advertisement on 28-

05-2013 in daily “Punya Pratap”.

(vi) Thereafter the Management resolved to accommodate

the Petitioner on the full-time fully aided post of Shikshan-Sevak

(Assistant Teacher) which had fallen vacant due to superannuation of

Mr. Ramchandra Chaudhari. Accordingly, an appointment order was

issued by the Management in the name of the Petitioner.

(vii) A proposal for approval was moved by the Management

to the Education Officer, which merely remained pending.
4 Writ Petition No.8230 of 2024.docx

On completion of the probation period, the Management appointed

the Petitioner on regular pay scale, and a proposal was moved to the

Education Officer for approval. The said proposal also remained

pending for the reasons best known to the Education Officer.

(viii) On this backdrop, the management terminated Petitioner

from the services for want of approval vide order dated 13-10-2016.

(ix) Petitioner assailed termination u/s 9 of the Maharashtra

Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act 1977

[hereinafter ‘the Act’] before the School Tribunal.

(x) The School Management supported the case that the

Petitioner was lawfully appointed within the meaning of Section 5(1)

of the Act, but took a safe stand that for want of approval and to

avoid financial burden, the Petitioner was terminated.

(xi) Education Officer did not appear before the Tribunal

despite having been served.

(xii) The Tribunal accepted the legal position that only for

want of approval, a permanent employee cannot be terminated.

However, the Tribunal went on to observe that the Petitioner was not

lawfully appointed.
5 Writ Petition No.8230 of 2024.docx

(xiii) Learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal drew following

observations:

(i) Permission from the Education Officer was not found to
fill up the subject-matter post;

(ii) The appointment was against the ban imposed vide
Government Resolution dated 02-5-2012;

(iii) There was no material to show that the initial post of
part-time teacher was a clear and vacant post. The
subject-matter post was not a clear and vacant post;

(iv) Petitioner was not appointed on the part-time post by
following due procedure of law. Hence his subsequent
appointment is also wrong.

(xiv) As against the Judgment and Order dated 26-03-2024,

the Petitioner is before this Court. Respondents - School and

Management are also present through their the advocates. The

Education Officer has caused appearance through the learned

Assistant Government Pleader and has also entered his reply

affidavit.

4. Submissions and consideration:

(i) Heard the learned advocates for Petitioner, Respondent

nos. 1 and 2, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Respondent no.3. Perused the case papers and pleadings.
6 Writ Petition No.8230 of 2024.docx

(ii) Mr. Panpatte relies upon the advertisement, the letter

issued by the management to the Education Officer, the

appointment order, initial approval on part-time basis, and

subsequent proposal for his regular appointment. He submits that

for want of approval, an employee cannot be terminated.

(iii) It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the

Tribunal has not considered the prevailing law. That, once the initial

appointment was approved by the Education Officer, learned

Member of the Tribunal was not justified in observing that the initial

appointment was illegal. Thus, Mr. Panpatte prays to allow the

petition with additional prayer to direct the Education Officer to

accord approval.

(iv) Mr.P.G.Gunale, learned advocate representing the School

Management candidly supports Petitioner’s case so far as procedure

for selection, qualification and legality of appointment is concerned.

He submits that since the Education Officer did not accord approval,

management terminated the Petitioner.

(v) Mr.Kiran Jadhavar, learned Assistant Government Pleader

relies upon the reply affidavit filed by the Education Officer. He

submits that the Management failed to timely inform the Education

Officer about Petitioner’s termination.
7 Writ Petition No.8230 of 2024.docx

5. Discussion and consideration:

(a) It is not disputed by any party that the Petitioner belongs

to Other Backward Class. A selection procedure was conducted by

the Management to fill in one part-time post of Shikshan-Sevak

reserved for Other Backward Class, at Respondent no.2 School. Two

candidates including the Petitioner underwent the selection

procedure. The other candidate subsequently expressed her

disinclination for appointment. The Petitioner was possessing

requisite qualification. Hence the Management resolved to appoint

him on the said post. Accordingly the Petitioner was appointed as

part-time Shikshan-Sevak on a seat reserved for Other Backward

Class in the fully aided school i.e. Respondent no.2.

(b) Suffice to note, the Education Officer accorded approval

to the appointment. The said approval was never revoked nor ever

was set aside by any higher authority. Hence, it can be held as a

conclusive proof that the appointment was made by due process of

law and that the post was a clear and vacant post.

proceeding before the Tribunal, he has filed his reply affidavit before

this Court. Since it is reply affidavit by the Education Officer whose
8 Writ Petition No.8230 of 2024.docx

assistance is of vital importance in such matters, I carefully went

through the contents. The reply affidavit only objects that the

Management never communicated to the Education Officer about

Petitioner’s termination. Paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the reply affidavit

are reproduced as below:-

4) I say and submit that, the Respondent management
Terminate the Service of Petitioner. Management even
does not reported to the Respondent no. 3 at relevant
time.

5) I say and submit that, it was later noticed, during
administrative scrutiny, that the management had
failed to communicate the termination of Petitioner to
the higher authorities, which resulted in the non
reflection of this action in the official records of the
Respondent No.3.

(d) Thus, the Education Officer has agreed and accepted that

Petitioner’s initial appointment was lawful and on clear and vacant

post. Education Officer avoided to comment anything on the point of

Management’s application that was filed for permission to initiate

selection procedure to fill in full-time post. There is no denial to the

contention of the Petitioner and the Management. This goes to show

that Education Officer has no case to object that the appointment

was in violation of the rules or any Government Resolution.
9 Writ Petition No.8230 of 2024.docx

(e) So far as nature of the vacancy of full-time post of

Shikshan-Sevak is concerned, it is a matter of record that the said

post had fallen vacant on account of earlier employee’s

superannuation. The post was reserved for Other Backward Class,

and the Petitioner also belongs to the same category. Hence the

Tribunal erred in observing that there was nothing on record to show

that the posts on which the Petitioner was initially appointed on part-

time basis as also subsequently appointed on full-time basis, were

clear and vacant posts.

(f) From the approval to the initial appointment, it is clear

that the part-time post was clear and vacant. From the fact that the

full-time post fell vacant due to retirement of earlier employee, it is

also clear that the said post was also clear and vacant.

(g) This Court has consistently held that failure on the part of

the Education Officer to take timely decision on Management’s

application seeking leave to initiate selection process, cannot

penalize the employee who is otherwise lawfully appointed. This

Court has also observed that such appointments must not be made

as a precedent, and the higher authorities of the School Education

Department must take stock of the cases pending before the

education officers pan State seeking permission to fill in vacancies.
10 Writ Petition No.8230 of 2024.docx

(h) The Education Officer did not appear before the Tribunal

nor even disputed the approval granted to Petitioner’s part-time

appointment. Even before this court too, the Education Officer does

not say so in his reply affidavit.

(i) Under these circumstances, I am constrained to observe

that learned Member of the School Tribunal wrongfully held that

Petitioner’s initial appointment itself was faulty.

(j) Suffice to note, while disallowing the appeal, the Tribunal

held that the initial appointment itself was faulty.

(k) So far as procedure is concerned, the Petitioner placed

on record copy of the advertisement published in newspaper

together with an application/intimation by the Management to the

Education Officer that it seeks to fill in the full-time post that was

fallen vacant due to superannuation of earlier employee.

(l) The vacancy on full-time post occurred due to

superannuation of earlier employee. The Petitioner, who belonged to

the same category to which the vacant post belonged, i.e. Other

Backward Class and was holding adequate qualification, was

accommodated from part-time post to full-time post.
11 Writ Petition No.8230 of 2024.docx

(m) There is nothing on record nor anything in the discussion

of the Tribunal that such appointment is forbidden by law. Hence, in

the peculiar facts of the case I am of the opinion that Petitioner’s

accommodation on full-time post of Shikshan-Sevak cannot be said

per se illegal.

(n) True that there was ban on new appointments in the year

2012. However, the subject-matter post was not a newly created

post. The vacancy arose on account of superannuation of the earlier

employee. This Court in the lead case of Munoli Karabasappa Vs.

State and ors. with connected Writ Petitions (W.P. No.8587 of

2016 with connected matters) at Principle seat observed that the

ban won’t be applicable to, (a) where the recruitment process is

already commenced prior to Government Resolution dated 02-05-

2012, (b) where the appointments made for filling up vacancies in

English, Mathematics, and Science; (c) where the recruitment is

made to fulfill the backlog of reserved categories candidates.

(o) The Petitioner, as observed supra, falls under the

category (c) as above.

(p) There is nothing on record to dispute that the

Management filed a proposal with the Education Officer to fill in the
12 Writ Petition No.8230 of 2024.docx

vacant full-time post. Such material was neither placed before the

Tribunal, nor is placed before this court even though a reply on oath

is filed.

(q) If so, the Education Officer incurs entire responsibility of

the scenario and its effect, that the selection procedure was proper

one and that there are no reasons to deny the approval to the

Petitioner.

(r) This Court expected assistance from the Education

Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad Jalgaon to explain as to (a) what

happened to the proposal filed by the management; (b) whether

such proposal was received or not; (c) if the Education Officer was of

the opinion that the approval could not be granted, whether and why

such communication was not intimated to the Petitioner and the

Management; (d) why those things are not explained before the

Tribunal or before this Court etc. Even assuming for the sake of

arguments that the approval proposal was rejected by the Education

Officer and that the Petitioner suppressed it, still the Education

Officer could have demonstrated so before this court by filing reply

affidavit. As observed supra, the reply affidavit even remotely not

say so. The only objection, as recorded above, is that the

management did not inform timely about Petitioner’s termination.
13 Writ Petition No.8230 of 2024.docx

(s) The Education Officers, are the government officers.

They have to come forward and assist the courts by demonstrating

the facts. In the failure of Education Officer to discharge such

responsible duty, this Court is constrained to render the findings

based upon the record placed before by the employee, the

management and the findings of the Tribunal. A result in favor of an

employee necessarily declares legality of the appointment and casts

financial burden on the public fund through the Zilla Parishad. If the

litigant employee was indeed appointed lawfully, he must get justice.

However, to bring the court/Tribunal at right conclusion, the

explanation/assistance from the Education Officer is of vital role.

(t) This Court expresses serious displeasure on the approach

of the respondent Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad

Jalgaon in not extended wholehearted and incumbent assistance to

the Court. Learned Assistant Government Pleader suffered limitation

to go beyond the reply affidavit filed by the Education Officer.

(u) Hence, I observe that in the light of the record placed

before this court by the Petitioner and the extremely restricted

submission by the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, has

accepted that the Petitioner was lawfully appointed on the subject-
14 Writ Petition No.8230 of 2024.docx

matter post within the meaning of the Act, and that the Education

Officer merely sat on the approval proposal for the reasons best

known to him/her.

(v) At this juncture, I beneficially place my hands over a

Judgment and Order dated 02-12-2021 passed by this Court at

Aurangabad, in very identical Writ Petition No.10834 of 2018 with

connected matters. This Court while concluding the Judgment and

Order, observed thus:-

18. While rejecting the appeals filed by the petitioners,
the School Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the
afore stated settled legal position. The Tribunal has erred in
rejecting the appeals solely on the ground that the prior
permission of the Education Officer and the Deputy
Director of Education was not obtained before issuing the
advertisement and filling up the posts. The Tribunal has
ignored the representations forwarded by the Management
to the Education Officer and the Deputy Director of
Education and waiting for their response for more than one
year and 10 months, the Management had also forwarded
the representations to the Social Welfare Department as well
as the Employment Exchange calling from them the names
of the eligible candidates before issuing advertisement. In
these circumstances, the Management was justified, so as to
protect the interest of the students, to initiate and complete
the process of filling up the posts by appointing the
petitioners. It is not in dispute that the posts which are filled
up by the Management were permanent clear vacant posts
which were filled after following due procedure. The
Management has also followed the reservation while filling
up the said posts. These important aspects are ignored by
the Tribunal while rejecting the appeals of the petitioners,
hence the impugned order is vitiated and cannot be
sustained.
15 Writ Petition No.8230 of 2024.docx

19. In the result, the following order is passed :-
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition Nos. 10834/2018, 10835/2018,
10836/2018 and 10341/2019 are allowed.
(ii) The impugned orders passed by the School Tribunal,
Solapur in Appeal Nos. 65 of 2016, 66 of 2016, 67 of 2016
and 68 of 2016 are hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) The impugned termination orders are hereby set aside.
(iv) The petitioners are reinstated in service as Shikshan
Sevaks so as to complete the remaining tenure of their
respective posts.
(v) On reinstatement of the petitioners, the Respondent –
Management shall forward the proposals for their approval
within a period of two months to the Education Officer.
(vi) The respondent No.2 – Education Officer is directed to
grant approval to the petitioners’ appointment with effect
from 08.12.2014 and also allow grant of aid to the school
for payment of honorarium to the petitioners with effect
from the date of petitioners’ appointment including all
arrears upto date.
(vii) Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to
costs.

(w) Ordinarily, this court would not have extended directions

to the Education Officer for grant of approval. However, in the

peculiar facts and circumstances as are elaborately discussed by this

court in Ketan Jadhav case (supra), I find that the Petitioner too

deserves a similar order.

6. Conclusion:

Hence, I am of the considered view that the Petition must

succeed. Accordingly, directions are also needful in the peculiar facts

of the case where the termination itself was based for want of

approval; and while the Education Officer did not answer anything on

the proposal. It is also needful to intimate the higher authorities of
16 Writ Petition No.8230 of 2024.docx

the Zilla Parishad and the School Education Department of the State

to look into the issue of Education Officers’ failure to pass

appropriate and timely orders on the proposals received from the

managements to fill up the posts. Directions are also necessary to

the Education Officers to file comprehensive response before the

Tribunal and the High Court explaining the true facts in the matters.

7. Hence, I pass the following order Order:-

ORDER

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned order passed by the School Tribunal,

Nashik in Appeal No.105 of 2016 is quashed and set aside.

(iii) The impugned termination order is hereby set aside.

(iv) The respondent – Management shall forthwith reinstate

the petitioner, if not already reinstated.

(v) Respondent No.3 – Education Officer (Secondary) is

directed to grant approval to the petitioner’s appointment with effect

from the date of appointment on full-time post and also allow grant

of aid to the school for payment to the petitioner with effect from

date of petitioner’s appointment including all arrears upto the date. If

necessary, the Education Officer shall call upon the respondent –

Management to forward a fresh comprehensive proposal for approval
17 Writ Petition No.8230 of 2024.docx

of the petitioner’s service, within a period of one months from the

date of this order. The Education Officer shall issue approval within a

period of three months from today.

(vi) Rule made absolute in above terms. No order as to

costs.

[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
………..

KBP

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…