Manohar Laxman Kengar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Manohar Laxman Kengar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The Education Officer's rejecting order dated 19 November 2025 is quashed and set aside; the entire controversy (including approval of the Petitioner's promotion as Head Master) is remanded to the Education Officer for fresh decision on merits with hearing to all parties, to be completed within 4 weeks (parties to appear on 23 March 2026); all contentions kept open; pending Interim Application No. 119 of 2026 also stands disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Sustainability of the Education Officer's order dated 19 November 2025 rejecting both competing proposals (Shri. Kengar and Mrs. Vazir) for the single Head Master post, made without considering the proposals on their own merit merely because two proposals were received for one post. +1 more

Court's answer

The order passed by the Education Officer dated 19 November 2025 rejecting the proposals of Mrs. Vazir and Mr. Kengar is quashed and set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The Education Officer is directed to reconsider the entire controversy afresh, granting an opportunity of hearing to all parties, and thereafter pass a detailed order recording cogent reasons.

Key takeaways

The Education Officer is to decide the controversy and the issue of approval as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of 4 weeks; parties were directed to appear before him on 23 March 2026.ratio¶36
All contentions raised in the petition are expressly kept open.obiter¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Manohar Laxman Kengar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., WRIT PETITION NO. 12679 OF 2025 (Bombay High Court, Kolhapur Circuit Bench; Madhav J. Jamdar & Pravin S. Patil, JJ.; 10 March 2026): The Petitioner prayed for a direction to Respondent No.5 - Education Officer to decide the proposal sent by Respondent No.6 - Educational Institution for individual approval to his promotion as Head Master of New English School (Sec.), Miraj (Taluka/District: Miraj/Sangli) w.e.f. 1-6-2025 under Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools [Conditions of Service] Rules, 1981, and for continuance of his signatory rights. Newly added Trustees simultaneously forwarded a rival proposal of Mrs. Tabbasum Riyajkhan Vazir for the same post; the Education Officer, unable to understand how two proposals were sent for one post, rejected both proposals by order dated 19 November 2025. With the parties' consent, the Court quashed and set aside that order and remanded the entire controversy to the Education Officer for a fresh decision on merits - applying his mind and verifying seniority and other relevant factors - after affording an opportunity of hearing to all parties, directing the parties to appear on 23 March 2026 and the Education Officer to decide within 4 weeks by a detailed order recording cogent reasons; all contentions in the petition were expressly kept open and the Writ Petition, along with pending Interim Application No. 119 of 2026, stood disposed of.

922-12679-2025-CWP=.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 12679 OF 2025

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 119 OF 2026

Digitally signed by UDAY UDAY SHIVAJI SHIVAJI JAGTAP JAGTAP Date:2026.03.10 20:10:23 +0530

IN

WRIT PETITION NO. 12679 OF 2025

Manohar Laxman Kengar .. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

Mr. S.S. Sankpal h/f Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioner. Mr. Utkarsh S. Desai for Respondent No.6. Ms. T.J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent - State.

CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR & PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 10^th MARCH, 2026.

P. C. :

1. Heard.

2. By this petition, the Petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :-

“(b) By a suitable Writ, Order or direction, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.5 - Education Officer to decide the proposal sent by the Respondent No.6 - Educational Institution for individual approval to the promotion of the Petitioner in the post of Head Master at New English School (Sec.), Miraj, Taluka: Miraj, District: Sangli by taking into consideration Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools [Conditions of Service] Rules, 1981 and without granting signatory rights only within period of two weeks or

1 of 4

Uday S. Jagtap

922-12679-2025-CWP=.doc

any other period within the stipulated period which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and accordingly, to grant individual approval to the said promotion of the Petitioner in the post of Head Master w.e.f. 1-6-2025;

(c) Without prejudice to the prayed clause 'b', pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition as well as proposal before the Respondent No.5-Education Officer, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.5Education Officer continue signatory rights granted to the Petitioner as Head Master of aforesaid School to the Petitioner w.e.f. 1-6-2025;”

3. The newly added Trustees came with a submission that they have also forwarded the proposal of Mrs. Tabbasum Riyajkhan Vazir for the post of Head Master of School. The Education Officer by his order dated 19^th November 2025, rejected the proposal of Shri. Kengar as well as Mrs. Vazir on the ground that he could not understood as to how two proposals are forwarded to his office for one post.

4. We have perused the entire record and the contentions which are raised in the Petition. After hearing for some time, the parties consented that this matter can be remanded back to the Education Officer to decide afresh the entire controversy involved in the matter by giving them hearing opportunity as Education Officer did not consider the proposals on it’s own merit. According to them, Education Officer should apply his mind and decide the proposal on merits by verifying the seniority

2 of 4

Uday S. Jagtap

922-12679-2025-CWP=.doc

and other relevant factor as per settled principles of law.

5. In view of the above, we pass following order :-

O R D E R

(i) The order passed by the Education Officer dated 19^th November 2025 of rejecting the proposal of Approval of Mrs. Vazir and Mr. Kengar is hereby quashed and set aside.

(ii) The Education Officer is directed to reconsider the entire controversy involved in the matter by granting an opportunity of hearing to all the parties and, after hearing them, pass a detailed order in the matter by recording cogent reasons.

(iii) Parties are directed to appear before the Education Officer on 23^rd March 2026.

(iv) The Education Officer is directed to decide the controversy and the issue of approval as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of 4 weeks.

(v) All contentions raised in the petition are expressly kept open.

6. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

3 of 4

Uday S. Jagtap

922-12679-2025-CWP=.doc

7. In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, pending Interim

Application also stands disposed of.

[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. ]

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

4 of 4

Uday S. Jagtap