Ku. Khushali D/O. Ganesh Ramteke vs Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur and Others

The grievance of the petitioner pertains to the impugned order dated 21.12.2023, passed by respondent No.1Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, thereby rejecting the proposal to include the name of the petitioner in Shalarth ID. The reason stated in the impugned order placed at Annexure-VI is that there was no post of ‘Laboratory Assistant’ sanctioned in staffing pattern of respondent No.3 School for the Academic year 2013-14.

¶22

Shri P.N. Shende, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was appointed on the post of ‘Laboratory Assistant’ on compassionate basis vide appointment order dated 01.03.2023 Annexure-IV at record page 23. The appointment of the petitioner was duly approved by respondent No.2- Education

¶23

wp 7106-2024.odt 3/6

¶24

Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, vide approval order dated 19.04.2023. However, respondent No.1- Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, vide the impugned communication has rejected the proposal for inclusion of the name of the petitioner in Shalarth ID. The reasons as stated above is that there was no post of ‘Laboratory Assistant’ sanctioned in the staffing pattern of the year 2013-14.

¶25

Shri A.V. Palshikar, learned A.G.P. supports the

¶26

impugned order and has relied upon the staffing pattern placed on record for the year 2012-13 at record page No. 46 along with the reply of respondent No.1. The aforesaid staffing pattern shows that the post of ‘Laboratory Assistant’ is zero and that of ‘Laboratory Attendant’ is one. The appointment of the petitioner is on the post of ‘Laboratory Assistant’. However, the aforesaid contention of the respondent is contradicted by Shri Shende, learned Counsel for the petitioner by pointing out the staffing pattern at page No.20 Annexure-I wherein for the academic year 2018-19, one post of ‘Laboratory Assistant’ is shown to be sanctioned.

¶27

wp 7106-2024.odt 4/6

¶28

It is worth to mention here that the strength of the students in respondent No.3 School for the Academic year 2018-19 is 308. Shri Shende, learned Counsel for petitioner relies upon the Government Resolution dated 28.01.2019 at record page No.51. The aforesaid Government Resolution provides for the revised staffing pattern and the criteria for doing so. At page No.53, the relevant post of ‘Laboratory Assistant’ has been dealt with and it is provided that for the strength of students more than 200, one post of ‘Laboratory Assistant’ can be sanctioned. Now, It is relevant to note for respondent No.3 School that the post of ‘Laboratory Assistant’ was sanctioned in the academic year 2018-19. The appointment of the petitioner was made on 01.03.2023 and, therefore, on the relevant date, the post of ‘Laboratory Assistant’ was duly sanctioned.

¶29

Shri A.V. Palshikar, learned A.G.P. further argues that though the post of ‘Laboratory Assistant’ was sanctioned for the academic year 2018-19, it was in compliance of the Government Resolution dated 28.01.2019. He further points out the fact that the aforesaid Government Resolution was challenged before the

¶30

wp 7106-2024.odt 5/6

¶31

Principal Seat of this Court by various Employees Associations including the Maharashtra Rajya Shaikshanik Prayogshala Karmachari Mahasangh and another in Writ Petition No.5058/2021 and there was an interim order operating in the aforesaid Writ Petition. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the staffing pattern was stayed. However, the order dated 06.02.2024 is placed on record and it reveals that the aforesaid interim order was vacated and the petitions were disposed off. In compliance of the order passed by the Principal Seat of this Court on 06.02.2024, the Government of Maharashtra vide communication dated 21.02.2024 has directed respondent No.1 to proceed on the basis of the staffing pattern as per Government Resolution dated 28.01.2019 as the interim order in Writ Petition No.5058/2021 has been vacated by this Court. We also seek reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 26.02.2025 in Writ Petition No.3637/2024 ( Sant Sai Baba Shikshan Sanstha, Wanadongri, thr. Its Secretary, and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others ), wherein this Court held thus:

¶32

“3. Once the approval has been granted by the Education Officer, which is not disputed, is still in force, the Deputy Director of Education cannot refuse to include the names of the Petitioners in the Shalarth ID for the purpose of disbursing of their salary. In that view

¶33

wp 7106-2024.odt 6/6

¶34

of the matter, the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Director of Education are hereby quashed and set aside and it is directed that the names of the Petitioners be included in the Shalarth ID for the purpose of disbursal of their salary and other emoluments.”

¶35

In view of the above, we are inclined to allow the present

¶36

Writ Petition. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶39

ii) The impugned order dated 21.12.2023 passed by respondent No.1- Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, thereby refusing to include the name of the petitioner in Shalarth ID is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶40

iii) The respondent No.1 is directed to grant its Shalarth ID number in favour of the petitioner as a ‘Laboratory Assistant’ w.e.f. 01.03.2023, within a period of two weeks from the receipt of the order.

¶41

Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to

¶42

costs.

¶43

( RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)

¶44

R.S. Sahare

¶45

Signed by: Mrs. Ranjana Sahare Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 24/09/2025 19:21:16

Ku. Khushali D/O. Ganesh Ramteke v. Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku. Khushali D/O. Ganesh Ramteke v. Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deorao Balu Rathod vs the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Buldhana and Others

Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, through Its Executive Engineer, Yavatmal vs Naresh Samirmal Kotecha and 2 Others

Rupesh S/O. Teksingh Shinde vs the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Maharashtra State, Nagpur

Harishchandra Narayandasji Dangra and Others vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Collector, Nagpur and Others

Vidya Kamal Tambole vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary Town Planning Department, Mumbai and Another

Rupesh S/O. Teksingh Shinde vs the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Maharashtra State, Nagpur