SEEMA VASANT GOLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU SECRETARY AND ORS

                                                                       18-WP-8850-2026.DOC



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       WRIT PETITION NO. 8850 OF 2026

Seema Vasant Gole                                                ...Petitioner
      Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                                  ...Respondents
                                        _______


Mr Mujahid Ansari, for Petitioner.
Ms Pooja C. Patil, AGP for Respondents-State.
                                        _______

                              CORAM:         G. S. KULKARNI &
                                             DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

                              DATE:          18th AUGUST 2026

P.C.

1.        Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of all the

parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

2.        By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks the quashing and setting aside of

the Order dated 10.04.2026 passed by Respondent No.4, Education Inspector

(Secondary), refusing to approve the Petitioner’s appointment as Junior Clerk and

the Communication dated 28.05.2025 issued by Respondent No.2, Director of

Education.

3.        Respondent No.1 is the Secretary, Ministry of School Education

Department, Maharashtra; Respondent No.2 is the Director of Education;

Respondent No.3 is the Deputy Director of Education; Respondent No.4 is the

Education Inspector (Secondary); Respondent No.5 is the Superintendent, Pay

Unit; and Respondent No.6 is the N.E.S High School, Bhandup, a recognized


                                     Page 1 of 5
Shivgan
                                                                          18-WP-8850-2026.DOC



aided minority institution.

4.        In brief, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner was appointed as a Junior

Clerk in Respondent No.6-School w.e.f. 09.02.2026 against a clear and sanctioned

vacant post, as per the revised Sanchmanyata dated 07.10.2024. Pursuant to the

same, Respondent No. 6-School submitted a proposal dated 27.03.2026 to

Respondent No.4-Education Inspector (Secondary), seeking approval for the

Petitioner’s appointment. By Order dated 10.04.2026, Respondent No.4-

Education Inspector (Secondary) refused to process the proposal dated 27.03.2026

and to grant approval for the Petitioner’s appointment, on the ground that

Respondent No.2-Director of Education, vide its Communication dated

28.05.2025, has directed all the Deputy Directors of Education and Education

Inspectors (Secondary) to not approve the appointment of any non-teaching staff

nor grant related benefits unless and until a report on sanctioned, additional and

vacant posts concerning Online Sanchmanyata for the year 2024-25 is submitted

and the process of absorption of additional non-teaching staff is completed. It is

this Order dated 10.04.2026 and Communication dated 28.05.2025 that are

impugned in the present writ petition.

5.        Mr Mujahid Ansari, learned Counsel, appeared for the Petitioner and Ms

Pooja C. Patil, learned AGP, appeared for the Respondents.

6.         Mr Ansari submitted that the present issue is squarely covered by the

Judgment and Order dated 23.02.2023, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court in Writ Petition No. 8174 of 2025. That judgment involved identical facts

and held that no such condition can be imposed on the petitioners as a prerequisite



                                      Page 2 of 5
Shivgan
                                                                                 18-WP-8850-2026.DOC



for granting approval and Shalarth ID. He further submitted that executive

instructions, such as those issued by Respondent No.2, cannot override statutory

provisions governing the approval of appointments against sanctioned vacancies.

He also submitted that Respondent No.4, Education Inspector (Secondary), passed

the impugned Order without assigning any legal reasons for refusing to process the

approval of the Petitioner’s appointment, and that this refusal has adversely

affected her service benefits and livelihood. Hence, he prays that the writ petition

be allowed.

7.         Ms Patil vehemently opposed the writ petition and endeavoured to justify

the impugned Order. She prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

8.         We have heard both counsel for the respective parties and have perused the

record with their assistance.

9.         The controversy in the present petition is squarely covered by the

authoritative pronouncement of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of

Vidarbha Minority Education Society and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and

Ors. in Writ Petition No. 8174 of 2025. In paragraph 7 of the said decision, this

Court held as under:


          “7. . . . . The respondent-authorities have also failed to take into consideration
          the fact that the petitioners are minority institutions exercising their right
          under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. Consequence of the
          impugned order issued by the respondent no.2 is that the valid exercise of
          right by the petitioners-minority institutions to recruit non-teaching staff as
          per the Government Resolution dated 04.04.2025 is being interfered with,
          coupled with a consequence that such recruitment would be stalled
          indefinitely. In our considered opinion it is impermissible for respondent nos.



                                          Page 3 of 5
Shivgan
                                                                             18-WP-8850-2026.DOC



          1 and 2 to resort to such an action of imposing condition of absorption of
          surplus staff on the petitioner-institutions as it directly infringes the
          fundamental right guaranteed under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of
          India conferred on the petitioners-institutions to administer and establish
          their educational institutions. The State authorities cannot indirectly do an
          act which cannot directly be done. In other words, when the State has no
          authority to make appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff in respect
          of a minority institution, even if aid has been granted, such action of making
          an appointment cannot be taken by directing absorption of a surplus
          employee. This is nothing but, making appointment of a staff member in a
          minority institution. The law confers no such authority and power with the
          State Government to thrust an employee rendered surplus in other schools to
          be absorbed by a minority institution. Rule 25 A of the Maharashtra
          Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Rules cannot be made
          applicable to appoint surplus staff in a minority institution unless the
          minority institution is consulted and concurs for such an appointment. We,
          therefore have no hesitation to conclude that the impugned communication
          dated 28.05.2025 issued by respondent no.2 is wholly arbitrary and illegal as
          the same infringes on the petitioners right guaranteed under Article 30 (1) of
          the Constitution of India."

10.        The above view is also followed in the case of Young Boys Education and

Industrial Circle vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.1 In view of the aforesaid, we

are of the considered view that the impugned Order and Communication are liable

to be quashed and set aside. We, therefore, pass the following order:


                                            ORDER

      i. The Writ Petition is allowed.

      ii. The impugned Order dated 10.04.2026 passed by Respondent No.4,

           Education Inspector (Secondary), is hereby quashed and set aside.

1 (2016) 2 Mh. L.J. 212


                                         Page 4 of 5
Shivgan
                                                                      18-WP-8850-2026.DOC



     iii. The impugned Communication dated 28.05.2025 passed by Respondent

          No.2, Director of Education, is hereby quashed and set aside.

     iv. It is hereby declared that the Respondent Authorities are not vested with the

          power to impose the condition of absorption of surplus non-teaching staff

          on the Respondent-School, while granting approval and also allotting

          Shalarth ID for appointments made in accordance with the Government

          resolution dated 04.04.2025.

     v. The Respondent-Authorities are directed to grant approval to the

          Petitioner’s appointment and allot her Shalarth ID, in accordance with the

          Government resolution dated 04.04.2025, and grant all consequential

          benefits ensuing therefrom.

     vi. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

     vii. The Writ Petition is disposed of.




(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J)                                    (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)


          Digitally
          signed by
          SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH    SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN   Date:
          2026.08.20
          16:57:14
          +0530




                                     Page 5 of 5
Shivgan