RAVIKIRAN SHAMRAO KAMBLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND ORS.

2026:BHC-KOL:9624-DB

                                                                      36-WP-9799-2024(C).doc


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

                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 9799 OF 2024

               Ravikiran Shamrao Kamble                                  ...Petitioner
                         Versus
               The State of Maharashtra and Others                       ...Respondents

                                               ——————
               Mr. Prashant Bhavake a/w Mr. Shivaa Navanne, for the Petitioner.
               Mr. Utkarsh Desai for Respondent Nos.6 & 7.
               Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State.
                                               ——————
                                                 Coram :     Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                                             Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                                 Date      : October 06, 2026.
               P. C. :

               1.        By the present Petition, the challenge is to the impugned order

               dated 16th March, 2022, by which the proposal seeking approval to the

               appointment of the Petitioner to the post of Peon came to be rejected

               by the Education Officer.

               2.        Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Respondent No.7 is

               minority institution. By reason of the promotion of the Peon to the post

               of Laboratory Assistant, the post became vacant. As the Respondent

               No.7 was a minority institution, the requirement of obtaining prior

               permission for issuance of an advertisement was not applicable and,

               accordingly, the advertisement was issued on 24 th May, 2019, pursuant


               Jamadar - SL                       1 of 6
                                                               36-WP-9799-2024(C).doc


to which the Petitioner applied and was appointed on 31 st December,

2019, with effect from 1st January, 2020. The proposal came to be

submitted on 6th July, 2020, which came to be rejected by the impugned

order dated 16th March, 2022.

3.       Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has taken this Court

through the grounds for rejection of the proposal. He would submit that

the reasons cited at Serial Nos.2, 3 and 4 will not apply, as Respondent

No.7 is a minority institution. He would submit that, insofar as the

reason at Serial No.5 is concerned, an advertisement was issued in a

daily newspaper with wide circulation, which has not been considered.

He would submit that the reasons cited at Serial Nos.6, 7 and 8 do not

survive in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this

Court in the case of Vikas Shikshan Mandal Vs. The State of

Maharashtra and Others1, where the Hon’ble Division Bench has held

that, until the new staffing patterns were introduced in 2019 and 2020,

the last staffing pattern introduced on 25 th November, 2005, will hold

the field. He would submit that the same would also cover the reason

cited that, as per the Sanch Manyata of 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, the

post of Peon was not sanctioned. He would submit that, insofar as the

reasons at Serial Nos.10 and 11 are concerned, inadvertently, in the

document, due to typographical error, instead of the promotion of the

1    Writ Petition No.6812 of 2024 dated 2nd February, 2026.


Jamadar - SL                                   2 of 6
                                                     36-WP-9799-2024(C).doc


earlier Peon as Laboratory Assistant, it was only mentioned as

promoted as Laboratory. He would further submit that though the

impugned order records that list of candidates present for interview

and their merit list is not submitted, the list of candidates and their

grading was submitted, and points out Page No. 51 of the Petition. It is

submitted that, without prejudice, he is willing to once again submit the

documents to the office of the Education Officer.

4.      Per contra, learned AGP would oppose the Petition and would

submit that one of the reasons for rejection was that the roster was not

verified. She submits that even if Respondent No.7 is a minority school,

in the event, there is surplus teacher, the teacher could have been

appointed to the minority institution and the vacancy could not have

been filled as has been done in the present case. She further points out

that the reason cited at Serial No.9 is that for the years 2018-2019 and

2019-2020, there is no sanctioned post of peon. She submits that, as the

Education Officer has scrutinized the proposal and has rejected the

same on cogent grounds, there is no reason for interference.

5.      We have considered the submissions and perused the record.

6.      Insofar as the rejection on the ground that no permission for

advertisement has been taken, the Respondent No.7 is a minority

institution, and therefore, the requirement of seeking permission for



Jamadar - SL                     3 of 6
                                                             36-WP-9799-2024(C).doc


issuance of the advertisement does not arise. The impugned order does

not indicate any consideration by the Education Officer of the status of

Respondent No.7 as a minority institution, and without noticing the said

fact, the approval has been rejected, which is evident from the grounds

on which the rejection is founded.

7.      Insofar as the issue of staffing pattern is concerned, the

Education Officer has taken into consideration the Government

Resolutions dated 23rd October, 2013 and 12th February, 2015, in order

to hold that the staffing pattern was not approved, and therefore, no

recruitment could have been made.

8.      The issue is no longer res integra and is covered by the decision of

the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vikas Shikshan

Mandal Vs. The State of Maharashtra (supra). This Court has

considered the said Government Resolutions and noted that holding

that the policy of the 2013 Government Resolutions remained in force

till the issuance of the 2019 and 2020 policies, or at least till the

issuance of the Government Resolution of 2015, would be absolutely

illogical. The Hon’ble Division Bench has expressed the reservations on

keeping an absolute ban on appointments in the schools for five years,

i.e. 2015 to 2020. In paragraph 12.14, it has held as under:

         “12.14. We are of considered view to hold that until the new staffing
         patterns were introduced in 2019 and 2020, the last staffing policy



Jamadar - SL                          4 of 6
                                                               36-WP-9799-2024(C).doc


         introduced vide Government Resolution dated 25.11.2005 was holding
         field. Thus, the conundrum created by the various Government
         Resolutions from 2013 to 2019 & 2020 (IV category) over the staffing
         pattern and the fate of the appointments made in the mean period,
         stands solved. Staffing pattern sought to be introduced by Government
         Resolution of 2013 lost its effect ab initio in view of Government
         Resolution of 2015. Meaning thereby, the earlier staffing pattern of
         2005 stood superseded by the staffing pattern of 2019 (for all
         categories excluding Class IV) and by the staffing pattern of 2020 (for
         Class IV category), both operational prospectively from their respective
         dates of issuance.”


9.      It is further noted that the new staffing pattern for Class IV

employees is operational only with effect from 11 th December, 2020.

The Petitioner has been appointed with effect from 1 st January, 2020.

The ground for rejection at Serial No. 7, that for the year 2018-2019 and

2019-2020, in the staffing pattern there was no sanctioned post of

peon, is unsustainable, as the Hon’ble Division Bench has held that the

last staffing policy introduced vide Government Resolution dated 25th

November, 2005 would hold the field. The Petitioner has also placed on

record the staffing pattern for the year 2012-2013, which shows that

five posts of peons were vacant.

10.     From the perusal of the impugned order, we do not find any

cogent reason to reject the proposal seeking approval.

11.     The impugned order notes that it is not clear as to the promotion

of the earlier employee was on which post, and his approval has not

been annexed, as well as the names of the candidates who were present

for the interview and their grading have not been annexed. The



Jamadar - SL                           5 of 6
                                                       36-WP-9799-2024(C).doc


Petitioner can be directed to make available the said record to the

Education Officer. However, the reasons which are cited for rejecting

the approval are unsustainable.

12.     In light of the above, the impugned order dated 16th March, 2022,

is hereby quashed and set aside.

13.     The Petitioner is directed to submit the explanation to Serial Nos.

10 and 11 within a period of one week from today. The same is only for

the purpose of the record of the Education Officer.

14.     The Education Officer is directed to grant approval to the

appointment of the Petitioner to the post of peon with effect from 1 st

January, 2020, within a period of four weeks.

15.     The Respondent No.4, - Deputy Director of Education to include

the name of the Petitioner in the Shalarth Pranali and issue the Shalarth

ID within a period of three weeks thereafter and to release the grant-in-

aid salary within a further period of three weeks thereafter.

16.     The Petition is allowed in the above terms.




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




Jamadar - SL                       6 of 6