TUSHAR PANDURANG BAGADEversusTHE EDUCATION OFFICER RAIGAD ZILLA PARISHAD AND ORS

                                                                             17-WP-9503-2026.DOC




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 9503 OF 2026


                      Tushar Pandurang Bagade                                    ..Petitioner
                            Versus
                      The Education Officer Raigad Zilla Parishad And        …Respondents
                      Ors

                      Mr. Yatin Malvankar, for the Petitioner.
                      Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP, for the Respondent-State.
                      Mr. Avinash Fatangare, i/b Fatangare & Associates, for Respondent
ARUN
                             No.4.
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL

Digitally signed by
                                                  CORAM:         N. J. JAMADAR, J.
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL                                           DATE :         17th AUGUST 2026
Date: 2026.08.25
20:11:14 +0530




                      ORAL ORDER:

                      1.    Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

                      2.    The challenge in this Petition is to an order passed by the

                      Education Officer (Secondary) Raigad, Zilla Parishad, on a dispute

                      having been raised by Respondent No.4, thereby directing the

                      Management, Respondent No.2, to prepare the seniority list of the

                      teachers in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 28 th

                      January 2025.

                      3.    In the Seniority List prepared by Management (R2), for the year

                      2025-2026 (Exhibit “G”), the Petitioner was shown senior to

                      Respondent No.4. Petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 3 and Respondent
                      ARS                                  1/4
                                                      17-WP-9503-2026.DOC

No.4 at Sr. No. 4. It appears that Respondent No. 4 disputed the

correctness of the determination of the seniority and initially filed an

objection with the Management (R2).

4.    In the wake of the said objection, the Management (R2) provided

an opportunity of hearing to the concerned teachers on 22 nd March

2026, but before the Management (R2) could take a decision,

Respondent No.4 raised a dispute with the Education Officer (R1) on

30th March 2026.

5.    By the impugned order, Respondent No.1 has directed the

Management (R2) to draw a fresh seniority list in accordance with the

Government Resolution dated 28th January 2025, opining that the

seniority list prepared for the year 2025-2026 (Exhibit “G”) was not in

accordance with the directives in the Government Resolution dated 28 th

January 22025.

6.    The principal grievance of the Petitioner was that, before passing

the impugned order, the Education Officer did not provide an

opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner though the Petitioner would be

affected by the order that might have been passed in the said dispute

filed by Respondent No.4.

7.    The parties are at issue over the position that has emerged post

the amendment in the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools

(Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, incorporated by the Maharashtra


ARS                                  2/4
                                                        17-WP-9503-2026.DOC

Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) (Amendment)

Rules, 2023 and the applicability of the Government Resolution dated

28th January 2025. It was the contention on behalf of the Petitioner that,

the facts of the case at hand are not governed by the Government

Resolution dated 28th January 2025.

8.    The Court finds that, in effect, the Education Officer has directed

the Management (R2) to draw a fresh seniority list in accordance with

the Government Resolution dated 28 th January 2025. The Management

(R2) has yet not taken any decision. Nay before the the Management

(R2) could take the decision, the Respondent No. 4 filed the dispute

before the Education Officer. Thus, it would be in the fitness of things

that the Management (R2) takes a decision on the objection / grievance

of Respondent No.4 in regard to the fixation of the seniority and

considers the applicability of the Government Resolution dated 28 th

January 2025. Depending on the decision which may be taken by the

Management (R2), the aggrieved party shall be at liberty to invoke the

remedies as available in law.

9.    The Petition thus stands disposed with a direction to the

Management (R2) to take decision on the objection / grievance of

Respondent No.4 in regard to fixation of the seniority, as fixed vide the

seniority list (Exhibit “G”), within a period of four weeks from the date

of communication of this order.


ARS                                   3/4
                                                         17-WP-9503-2026.DOC

10.   While taking the said decision, Respondent No. 4 shall consider

the applicability of Government Resolution dated 28th January 2025.

11.   It is clarified that this Court has not entered into the merits of the

matter and all the contentions of all the parties are kept open for

consideration.



                                             [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




ARS                                    4/4