Bombay High Court
ARCHANA SUNIL GEETversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU SECRETARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court disposed of the petitions, directing the petitioners to approach the Secretary of Education for relief and refusing to grant the writ of mandamus.
Summary
The petitioners challenged a series of Government Resolutions fixing the number and criteria for Laboratory Assistant posts in schools, alleging illegality, invalidity, and potential termination of their services. They sought a writ of mandamus to quash the resolutions and to direct the State to fix the required posts. The Court referred to an earlier decision (Maharashtra Rajya Shaikshanik Prayogshala Karmachari Mahasangh & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra) which held that the resolutions did not threaten termination because the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules provide protection and absorption. The Court directed the petitioners to present their grievances, including any Article 21A claims, to the Secretary of Education within two weeks and to seek a personal hearing. In the absence of a specific demand for justice, the Court declined to entertain the writs and disposed of all the petitions, leaving earlier protective orders in force.
Issues considered
- Whether the Government Resolutions fixing Laboratory Assistant posts are legal, valid, and proper.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to protection against termination under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.
- Whether the petitioners can invoke Article 21A of the Constitution/Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 in challenging the staffing pattern.
- Whether a writ of mandamus is appropriate in the absence of a specific demand for relief.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- government resolution
- staffing pattern
- laboratory assistants
- mandamus
- Article 21A
- Right to Education
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules
- judicial review
- surplus posts
Judgment
38.WP4320_2026.DOC
2026:BHC-AS:36392-DB
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4320 OF 2026
Vijay Dnyandev Kunde … Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1408 OF 2025
Sudhir Vishwasrao Patil & Ors. … Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary,
Education and Sports Dept. & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2999 OF 2025
Yogesh Yeshwant Dhamanse … Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary,
Education and Sports Dept. & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4925 OF 2026
Arpita Abhijit Deswandikar … Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary,
Education and Sports Dept. & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9045 OF 2026
Vijay Uddhav Gaikwad … Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary,
Education and Sports Dept. & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9037 OF 2026
Archana Sunil Geet … Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary,
Education and Sports Dept. & Ors. … Respondents
Page 1 of 5
1 September, 2026
38.WP4320_2026.DOC
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9042 OF 2026
Swati Prabhakar Ahire … Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary,
Education and Sports Dept. & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9039 OF 2026
Surekha Shivaji Shirsat … Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary,
Education and Sports Dept. & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9041 OF 2026
Rajendra Bhaskarrao Sonawane … Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary,
Education and Sports Dept. & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9047 OF 2026
Manisha Ramesh Mahale … Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary,
Education and Sports Dept. & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9044 OF 2026
Kishor Vitthal Kshatriya … Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary,
Education and Sports Dept. & Ors. … Respondents
_________
Mr. Avinash Fatangare a/w. Archana Shelar and Vishakka Pandit i/b. Fatangare &
Associates for the petitioners.
Mr. M.M. Pabale, AGP a/w. Mrs. Nisha M. Mehra, AGP, Ms. P.N. Diwan, AGP,
Mrs. D.S. Deshmukh, AGP and Mrs. P.M.J. Deshpande, AGP for the State.
Mr. Rohit Parab i/b. C.G. Gavnekar for respondent no. 4 in WP/9041/2025 and
Page 2 of 5
1 September, 2026
38.WP4320_2026.DOC
WP/9044/2026.
Mr. Kavyal Prafulla Shah for respondent no. 4 in WP/9045/2026.
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 1 SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.
1. All these petitions raise common issues of law and facts. The prayers as
made in the lead petition (Writ Petition No. 4320 of 2026) are required to be
noted, which reads thus:
“a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or Writ in
the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order and Direction,
calling for the record and proceedings pertaining to the issuance of G.R. dated
28.01.2019, 07.03.2019 and 15.03.2024 issued by respondent no. 1 with
regard to the criterion laid down qua the posts of Laboratory Assistants as also
consequential circulars/orders dated 01.03.2021, 26.03.2021 and 15.12.2025
issued by respondent no. 2 and after going through legality, validity and
propriety thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the same relating to
Laboratory Assistants to that extent;
b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or Writ in
the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order and Direction,
directing the respondents to fix the number of posts of Laboratory Assistants
in Secondary, Higher Secondary Schools and Junior Colleges with Science
faculty.”
2. Thus, the petitioners are primarily aggrieved by the staffing pattern as set
out by the Government Resolution in question. We have also considered the
Government Resolution dated 28 January, 2019. We have perused the order
dated 6 February, 2024 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Maharashtra Rajya Shaikshanik Prayogshala Karmachari Mahasangh & Anr. vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1, in which the Court has recorded the position taken
by the State Government and more particularly as set out in paragraphs 7 to 9.
1 Writ Petition No. 5058 of 2021
Page 3 of 5
1 September, 2026
38.WP4320_2026.DOC
The said paragraphs are required to be noted, which reads thus:
“7. The learned Advocate General points out that this interpretation is not
correct as the reading of the Government Resolution would show that the
members of the Petitioner Associations, for that matter other similarly situated
employees, would not be terminated from the services pursuant to the
impugned Government Resolution. The learned Advocate General points out
that even if the posts are declared surplus, since the Maharashtra Employees of
Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act and Rules thereunder
are applicable, being approved on the posts, absorption will have to be done as
per the governing Rules 26 and 27 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private
Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981and till that time such employees
are absorbed, their salary will be borne as per the Rules.
8. Since, the Government Resolution is interpreted as such by the learned
Advocate General, whose interpretation we accept, the apprehension of the
members of Petitioners/Associations regarding termination from services and
being rendered jobless no longer survives. The members of the
Petitioners/Associations, approved employees would have the protection of
Rules 26 and 27 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions
of Service) Rules, 1981. The learned Advocate General states that in light of
what is observed above, necessary instructions would be issued by the State
Government.
9. That being the position, it is not necessary for us to continue to entertain
the challenge at the behest of these petitioners. Leaving the larger question
open, if and when it is brought before the Court by the affected parties, we
dispose of the Writ Petitions. All interim applications are also disposed of.”
3. In our opinion, considering the fact that although the petitioners are now
working, however, on the record of the State Government, they are surplus, it will
be appropriate for the petitioner to raise all such contentions before the Secretary
of the Education Department/respondent no. 1 including to raise their
contentions on the applicability of the provisions of Article 21A of the
Constitution recognized under the provisions of Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009. In the event, such representation is made
within two weeks from today, let the same be considered by the Secretary of
Education Department/respondent no. 1 by granting an opportunity of personal
hearing and appropriate decision on the grievance of the petitioner be passed in
Page 4 of 5
1 September, 2026
38.WP4320_2026.DOC
accordance with law. We keep open all contentions of the petitioner in that
regard.
4. We are inclined to pass the such order, as it is the settled principle of law, as
laid down by the Supreme Court, that a basic requirement for the Court to issue a
writ of mandamus is first a demand for justice. In the absence of such a demand,
the petition cannot ordinarily be entertained.
5. Needless to observe that in the event, the petitioners’ contention are not
accepted, the petitioners would be at liberty to take appropriate legal remedy as
may be available to them.
6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitions would not warrant any further
consideration. They are disposed of.
7. Till the Secretary, Education Department decides the petitioners’
representation, protection granted in Writ Petition No. 1408 of 2025 (Sudhir
Vishwasrao Patil & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) and Writ Petition
No.2999 of 2025 (Yogesh Yeshwant Dhamanse vs. The State of Maharashtra &
Ors.) shall continue to operate.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Signed by: Vidya S. Amin Page 5 of 5
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge 1 September, 2026
Date: 05/09/2026 13:56:27
Checking your session…