Sunil Suresh Hubale vs the State of Maharashtra Thro. the Secretary School Education and Sports — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sunil Suresh Hubale vs the State of Maharashtra Thro. the Secretary School Education and Sports — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The order dated 23rd June 2025 rejecting approval of the Petitioner is quashed and set aside; the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur is directed to decide the Petitioner's proposal dated 20th May 2025 afresh on its own merits without considering the effect of the Director of Education's communication dated 28th May 2025; all other issues are expressly kept open; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the reliance placed by the Education Officer on the communication of the Director of Education dated 28th May 2025, while rejecting the Petitioner's proposal of approval, is applicable to the Petitioner's case, given that his appointment was made on 10th December 2024, before that communication came into existence. +1 more

Court's answer

As the appointment was made vide Appointment Order dated 10th December 2024 and the proposal was forwarded on 20th May 2025, the Management could not have been aware of the Director of Education's communication, which was not in existence at the time of the appointment; therefore such communication cannot be made applicable retrospectively.

Ratio / Principle

On facts also, the appointment of the Petitioner having been made on 10th December 2024, before the instructions issued by the Director of Education, the communication dated 28th May 2025 is not applicable; consequently, the impugned order does not survive.

Key takeaways

The Education Officer did not touch the merits of the proposal; according to the Court's considered opinion, the matter is required to be remitted back to the Education Officer to decide the proposal of approval of the Petitioner on its own merits.ratio¶7
Operative order (i): The Order of rejecting approval of the Petitioner dated 23rd June 2025 is quashed and set aside.ratio¶8
Operative order (ii): The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur is directed to decide the Petitioner's proposal dated 20th May 2025 afresh on its own merits, without considering the effect of the communication of the Director of Education dated 28th May 2025.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur (Madhav J. Jamdar & Pravin S. Patil, JJ.; decided 18 March 2026). The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur, by order dated 23rd June 2025, rejected the Petitioner's proposal of approval solely on the basis of a communication of the Director of Education dated 28th May 2025, which — as staff-justification procedure for academic session 2024-2025 was ongoing — directed educational authorities not to grant permission for fresh appointments until details of sanctioned posts, surplus posts, etc., were received. The Petitioner's appointment (Appointment Order dated 10th December 2024, following a vacancy of 26th September 2024 and an advertisement issued after no response to the request for permission) predated the communication, and the proposal had been forwarded only on 20th May 2025. The Court held that the Management could not have been aware of a communication not then in existence and that such communication cannot be applied retrospectively; on facts also, the appointment preceding the Director's instructions, the communication was not applicable, and consequently the impugned order did not survive. The order dated 23rd June 2025 was quashed and set aside, and the Education Officer was directed to decide the proposal afresh on its own merits without considering the effect of the communication. The Court expressly kept open all other issues, having expressed no opinion on the merits of the proposal; no order as to costs.

916-WP-10162-2025.doc

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

WRIT PETITION NO.10162 OF 2025

Sunil Suresh Hubale ...Petitioner

Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

Mr. Prashant Bhavake, for the Petitioner. Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP, for the Respondent-State. Mr. Utkarsh Desai, for Respondent Nos.6 & 7.

—————— Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar & Pravin S. Patil, JJ. Date: March 18, 2026

P.C.:

1. In the present Writ Petition, the challenge is to the Order of the Education Oicer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur dated 23rd June 2025, solely on the ground that the reliance placed by the Education Oicer on communication of the Director of Education dated 28th May 2025 while rejecting the proposal, is not applicable to the case of the Petitioner and, therefore, seeks indulgence of this Court in the matter.

2. In the present case, it is pointed out by the Petitioner that, after creation of the vacancy on 26th September 2024, a communication was made to the Education Oicer for grant of permission to ill up the post. However, there was no response from the Education Oicer and, therefore, an advertisement was issued. Then by following due procedure of law and in pursuance of resolution of management,

1 of 4

Arjun

916-WP-10162-2025.doc

Appointment Order dated 10th December 2024 was issued in favour of the Petitioner.

3. After the appointment, the proposal of Petitioner was forwarded to the Education Oicer for approval on 20th May 2025. The Education Oicer, in view of communication from the Director of Education dated 28th May 2025, rejected the proposal. Hence, Petitioner approached before this Court.

4. The learned AGP has strongly opposed the Petition. According to him, the appointment of the Petitioner was made during the academic session 2024-2025 and, therefore, the communication of Director of Education dated 28th May 2025 is applicable to the appointment of the Petitioner.

5. After hearing both the parties, we have perused the record and found that the appointment of the Petitioner was made by the management vide Appointment Order dated 10th December 2024 and the proposal was forwarded on 20th May 2025. Therefore, the Management, in any case, was not aware about the communication of the Director of Education, because the same was not in existence till the date of the appointment of the Petitioner in the school. The said communication came into existence on 20th May 2025. Therefore, such communication cannot be made applicable retrospectively in the matter.

2 of 4

Arjun

916-WP-10162-2025.doc

6. The perusal of communication dated 28th May 2025, states that as the procedure to issue staf justiication of academic session 20242025 is going on, therefore, unless the details of sanctioned post, surplus post, etc. are not received, till then Educational Authorities should not grant permission for fresh appointment. However, in the present case, appointment of Petitioner has already been done on 10th December 2024. Therefore, on facts also appointment of Petitioner being made before the instructions issued by Director of Education, the same is not applicable in the matter. Consequently, impugned Order does not survive in the matter.

7. In the present matter, Education Oicer did not touch to the merits of proposal. According to our considered opinion, the matter is required to remitted back to Education Oicer to decide the proposal of approval of Petitioner on its own merits.

8. Hence, we passed the following Orders.

i. The Order of rejecting approval of Petitioner dated 23rd June 2025 is hereby quashed and set aside.

ii. Education Oicer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur is directed to decide the proposal of Petitioner dated 20th May 2025 afresh on its own merits without considering the efect of communication of Director of Education dated 28th May 2025.

3 of 4

Arjun

916-WP-10162-2025.doc

iii. It is made clear that we have not expressed our opinion on the merits of proposal of approval, hence all the issues are expressly kept open except the efect of communication dated 28th May 2025.

9. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

[Pravin S. Patil, J.]

[Madhav J. Jamdar, J.]

4 of 4

Arjun