Moeez Ahmed Shaikh and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through G.P. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Moeez Ahmed Shaikh and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through G.P. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to Respondent No.4 to decide the approval proposal treating Petitioner No.1 as 'Assistant Teacher' on its own merits within 8 weeks of the parties' appearance on 1st October 2025, with opportunity to cure deficiencies; Deputy Director of Education to issue Shalarth ID within 8 weeks thereafter if approved; proposal not to be rejected on the ground of ban per Government Resolution dated 4th May 2020; Petitioner not to claim financial benefits for the ban period upto 1st November 2022; petitions disposed of by common order, no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No.4 – Administrative Officer (Primary), Municipal Corporation Education Board, Solapur should grant approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.1 as Shikshan Sevak. +1 more

Court's answer

Petitioner No.1 (employee) and Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 (Management) to remain present before the Administrative Officer on 1st October 2025 at 11:00 a.m. with a copy of the order; the Administrative Officer to take a decision on the proposal for approval of the Petitioner as 'Assistant Teacher' on its own merits within 8 weeks therefrom; if there are deficiencies, the Management is to be informed and given opportunity to cure them within the time frame; if approved, the Deputy Director of Education to issue Shalarth ID to the Petitioner within 8 weeks thereafter.

Ratio / Principle

There is no decision on the proposal made for approval of the appointment of the Petitioner; the communication dated 15th July 2022 does not amount to a rejection of approval.

Key takeaways

The proposal is not to be rejected on the ground of the ban, by virtue of the Government Resolution dated 4th May 2020; learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, submits that for the ban period upto 1st November 2022 the Petitioner will not claim any financial benefits burdening the State with financial implications.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petitions Nos. 10921, 10918 and 10917 of 2024 (Bombay High Court, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur) disposed of by a common order dated September 15, 2025 (Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.). The Petitioners sought a direction to Respondent No.4, Administrative Officer (Primary), Municipal Corporation Education Board, Solapur, to grant approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.1 as Shikshan Sevak. The Court held that the communication dated 15th July 2022 (page 30, paper book) had been misconceived as an order rejecting approval, and that no decision existed on the approval proposal. Parties were directed to remain present before the Administrative Officer on 1st October 2025 at 11:00 a.m.; the Administrative Officer to decide the proposal for approval of the Petitioner as 'Assistant Teacher' on its own merits within 8 weeks, informing the Management of any deficiencies and granting opportunity to cure them; upon approval, the Deputy Director of Education to issue Shalarth ID within 8 weeks thereafter. The proposal is not to be rejected on the ground of the ban by virtue of the Government Resolution dated 4th May 2020, and the Petitioner undertook not to claim financial benefits for the ban period upto 1st November 2022. Writ Petitions disposed of in the above terms; no costs.

12-10921-2024-CWP=.doc

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 10921 OF 2024

Digitally signed by UDAY UDAYSHIVAJI SHIVAJI JAGTAP Date: JAGTAP 2025.09.17 19:05:42 +0530

Moeez Ahmed Shaikh & Ors. … Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

ALONG WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 10918 OF 2024

Shaikh Humera Md. Ali Jeena & … Petitioners

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

ALONG WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 10917 OF 2024

Ms. Viqarunnisa Md. Usman Shaikh & Ors. … Petitioners

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

Mr. Akil Kupade for the Petitioners. Mr. Vijay Killedar for the Respondent No.4. Mr. S.B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent - State.

Coram : M. S. Karnik & Sharmila U. Deshmukh, JJ.

Date : September 15, 2025.

1 of 3

Uday S. Jagtap

12-10921-2024-CWP=.doc

P. C. :

1. As the order impugned in these petitions is common, the petitions are being disposed of by a common order.

2. The Petitioner is seeking direction to the Respondent No.4 – Administrative Officer (Primary), Municipal Corporation Education Board, Solapur to grant approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.1 as Shikshan Sevak.

3. Mr. Killedar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4 – Administrative Officer (Primary) submits that the Petitioner has misconceived the communication dated 15^th July 2022, which is at page 30 of the paper book, to be an order rejecting the approval. As can be seen from the order, the Administrative Officer has stated that in future, if any orders are received from the State Government regarding the norms set out in the Government Resolution for approval, the proposal for approval shall be considered in accordance with the extant rules and regulations.

4. We find that there is no decision on the proposal made for approval

of the appointment of the Petitioner. In this view of the matter, the

2 of 3

Uday S. Jagtap

12-10921-2024-CWP=.doc

Petitioner No.1 – employee as well as the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 Management to remain present before the Administrative Officer on 1^st October 2025 at 11:00 a.m. along with a copy of this order. The Administrative Officer to take a decision on the proposal for approval of the Petitioner as ‘Assistant Teacher’ on its own merits within a period of 8 weeks therefrom. If there are any deficiencies in the proposal, the Administrative Officer shall inform the Management deficiencies by giving them opportunity to cure the deficiencies within the time frame. In the event, the proposal is approved, the Deputy Director of Education to issue Shalarth ID to the Petitioner within a period of 8 weeks thereafter.

5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, submits that for the period of ban upto 1^st November 2022, the Petitioner will not claim any financial benefits burdening the State with financial implications. The proposal not to be rejected on the ground of ban, by virtue of Government Resolution dated 4^th May 2020.

6. The Writ Petitions are disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

[ Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. ]

3 of 3

Uday S. Jagtap