Partly allowed¶31

Farida Gulab Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Mar 2026WP/2604/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: cancellation of appointment order; oral instructions of Education Officer; Pavitra Portal selection; show cause notice; opportunity of hearing; reasoned order; natural justice/due process; reinstatement; presumption of continuity in service; jurisdiction of Education Officer (left open); Rayat Shikshan Sanstha; State of Maharashtra; Farida Gulab Shaikh; Writ Petition No. 2604 of 2026; High Court of Judicature at Bombay; decision dated 25 March 2026; petition partly allowed; impugned order dated 31 December 2025 set aside.

What did the court decide?

Impugned cancellation order dated 31.12.2025 set aside; Petitioner reinstated with continuity of service; Management at liberty to serve a fresh notice identifying discrepant documents, hear the Petitioner and pass a reasoned order. ¶31

Farida Gulab Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the Education Officer has jurisdiction to issue a direction to the Management, and whether oral instructions (absent written communication) can ground action such as cancellation of appointment. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

Unless there is a communication in writing, oral instructions of the Education Officer have no value; no Authority can act on oral instructions.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Alleged record discrepancies cannot sustain cancellation without a show cause notice pointing out the discrepant documents and a hearing of the Petitioner, after which the legitimacy of the appointment is to be considered.

¶25

Key takeaways

Whether the Education Officer had jurisdiction to issue such a direction is an issue left open to be considered.obiter¶22
The impugned order dated 31st December, 2025 stands set aside, with liberty to the Management, if it believes documents suffer from discrepancies, to issue an independent notice, afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned order; if the documents are in order, the appointment continues.ratio¶32
The Petitioner stands reinstated in service and continues in employment; she may assail any adverse conclusion drawn by the Management after due process.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Writ Petition No. 2604 of 2026 (decided 25 March 2026; Ravindra V. Ghuge & Abhay J. Mantri, JJ.). The Education Society cancelled the Petitioner's appointment (selection through the Pavitra Portal) by order dated 31 December 2025, purportedly on oral instructions of the Education Officer alleging record discrepancies. Held: oral instructions have no value absent written communication, and no Authority can act on them; whether the Education Officer had jurisdiction to issue such a direction was left open. Cancellation without show cause notice identifying the documents, hearing, and a reasoned order is impermissible. Petition partly allowed: the cancellation order was set aside; the Petitioner stood reinstated with a presumption of continuity in service, the Management retaining liberty to initiate a fresh notice-and-hearing process culminating in a reasoned order.

¶1

Digitally signed by GAURI GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD AMIT Date: GAEKWAD 2026.03.27 12:26:18 +0530

¶2

920.WP-2604-2026.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2604 OF 2026

¶5

Farida Gulab Shaikh ….Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents

¶8

Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Vinayak R. Kumbhar and Mr. Rajendra B. Khaire i/b. Mrs. Ashwini N. Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. V.G. Badgujar, AGP for the Respondent – State. Mr. Akshay P. Shinde for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶10

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

¶11

ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 25^th MARCH, 2026

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

On 4^th March, 2026, we had issued notice. The matter

¶15

was posted today to enable the learned Advocate for the Rayat Shikshan Sanstha to take instructions and make his submissions as regards the cancellation of the appointment order issued to the Petitioner by the Education Society, vide the impugned order dated 31^st December, 2025.

¶16

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the

¶17

selection of the Petitioner was made by following the procedure through the Pavitra Portal. The learned Advocate for the

1 of 3

Gauri Gaekwad

920.WP-2604-2026.odt

Management submits that the impugned order was issued actually because the Education Officer orally informed the Management that there are certain discrepancies in the records of the Petitioner.

¶22

We are surprised that the Education Officer has started issuing oral instructions. Unless there is any communication in writing, such oral instructions do not have any value. Moreover, whether the Education Officer has any jurisdiction to issue such a direction, is an issue to be considered.

¶23

The learned AGP submits that he wants an adjournment

¶24

to take instructions. We are not inclined to accept the said request. The matter is posted after 21 days, and in every matter, if the State asks for an adjournment, when the matter can be decided quickly, we would not be able to decide cases.

¶25

Be that as it may, no Authority can act on oral instructions. If the Management is of the view that there are certain discrepancies in the records of the Petitioner, the Management can issue a show cause notice to the Petitioner, point out the documents

¶26

in which there are discrepancies, and after hearing the Petitioner, consider whether the Petitioner’s appointment was made

2 of 3

Gauri Gaekwad

920.WP-2604-2026.odt

legitimately.

In view of the above, this Petition is partly allowed .

¶32

The impugned order dated 31^st December, 2025 stands set aside with liberty to the Management that, if it believes that there are any documents suffering from discrepancies, it may issue an independent notice to the Petitioner pointing out the documents as well as the discrepancies, give a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and thereafter pass a reasoned order. If the documents are in order, needless to state, the appointment of the Petitioner would continue.

¶33

The Petitioner would stand reinstated in service and continue in employment in view of this order, and only if there is any adverse conclusion drawn by the Management, the Petitioner would be at liberty to assail the same. If there are no discrepancies, there shall be a presumption of continuity in service.

¶34

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)

¶35

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶36

3 of 3

¶37

Gauri Gaekwad

Farida Gulab Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farida Gulab Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Alifiya Abdalia Mohamed and Anr. vs Union of India and Ors.

Amol Nivrutti Bandal and Anr. vs Sinhagad Technical Education Soc Thr Its Secretary and Ors.

Dr. Krishna Ganesh Wadikar vs the Secretary All India Shri Shivaji Memorial Soc and Ors.

Charuben K Mehta vs Joint Charity Commissioner I Maharashtra State and Ors.

Bhagyashri Dilip Golande vs the State of Maharashtra Thru. Secretary and Ors.

Priti Ramdas Joshi vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.