Rajeshwar Laxman Waghmare vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary Department of School Education and Others

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:21568-DB

¶2

( 1 )

¶3

WP 3696 of 2026

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3696 OF 2026

¶6

District - Dharashiv

¶7

Rajeshwar Laxman Waghmare Age; 47 years, Occu; Service (as Assistant Teacher) W/at; Bharat Madhyamik Va Uchh Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Makhani, Tq; Lohara, Dist; Dharashiv. ...PETITIONER VERSUS

¶8

The State Of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶9

The Director Of Education, Secondary and Higher Secondary, Maharashtra State Central Building, Pune.

¶10

Deputy Director Of Education, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Division, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.

¶11

The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Dharashiv.

¶12

The Head master, Bharat Madhyamik Va Uchh Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Makhani, Tq; Lohara, Dist; Dharashiv.

¶13

The Secretary, Bharat Shikshan Sanstha, Omarga, Tq; Omarga, Dist; Dharashiv. ….RESPONDENTS

¶14

( 2 ) WP 3696 of 2026

¶15

Mr. Umakant B. Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for Respondent/s – State

¶16

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.

¶17

DATE : 05.05.2026

¶18

JUDGMENT :- (Per Ajit B. Kadethankar, J.)

¶19

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. At the instance of the parties and considering the nature of controversy, we have heard the parties for final disposal of the Petition.

¶20

1. Subject-matter:

¶21

Refusal by the Education Officer to grant approval on regular Pay Scale for initial three years upon appointment as Shikshan Sevak by way of promotion from the non teaching post is the subject-matter of the present petition. Petitioner prays for regular pay scale instead of honorarium even for intial three years.

¶22

2. Facts in brief:

¶23

(a) Petitioner – a non teaching employee of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 acquired adequate qualification to be appointed as an Shikshan Sevak

¶24

( 3 ) WP 3696 of 2026

¶25

(Assistant Teacher). On account of superannuation of one Mr. D. P Chavan, a vacancy of an aided post of an Assistant Teacher was created in the Respondent no.5 school run by the Respondent no.6.

¶26

(b) Petitioner who was working as a Peon in the Respondent no.5 school, had acquired adequate qualification i.e. M.A., B.Ed. while on duty. The Petitioner made an application with the School Management to appoint him on the vacant post (supra). Only one application was received from amongst the employees of the school management for this purpose. Hence the school management resolved to promote the Petitioner on the subject-matter post. Accordingly, the Petitioner came to be appointed as Shikshan Sevak by way of promotion on 01.10.2021.

¶27

(c) When a proposal for approval was filed by the school management, the Education Officer granted approval to petitioner’s appointment w.e.f. 01.10.2021 as a Shikshan Sevak on a honorarium of Rs. 8000/- per month.

¶28

(d) The Petitioner completed three years and the school management continued him in the services. A further proposal was filed by the Respondent No.5 seeking approval to Petitioner’s continuation on the subject-matter post. Accordingly, the Education Officer vide order dated 18.02.2025 granted approval to the Petitioner’s service as an Assistant Teacher in regular pay scale

¶29

( 4 ) WP 3696 of 2026

¶30

S-14 w.e.f. 01.10.2024.

¶31

(e) At the behest of the Petitioner, the Respondent no.5 filed a grievance with the Respondent no.5 thereby objecting the approval on honorarium for the initial three years. It was sought to be convince that if the Petitioner was appointed through promotion to the teaching post, the approval on regular pay scale ought to have been granted from the initial date of appointment.

¶32

(f) Vide impugned order dated 22.12.2025, the Education Officer however turned down the objection. It was informed that in view of Government Resolution dated 10.06.2005 (Clause 8), the Petitioner was entitle for honorarium as Shikshan Sevak for the initial three years. That, accordingly the approvals were rightly granted.

¶33

(g) Feeling aggrieved by the communication, the Petitioner is before us.

¶34

3. Submissions:

¶35

(a) Mr. Deshmukh, learned advocate submits that in a number of matters this Court has struck down the clause 8 of the Government Resolution dated 10.06.2005. That, in the identical circumstances this Court has directed to correct the approvals and to treat the placement on regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment by promotion.

¶36

( 5 ) WP 3696 of 2026

¶37

(b) Mr. Deshmukh therefore submits that the Education Officer is bound by the observations recorded by this Court in a number of cases wherein it is clearly observed that the clause 8 of the Government Resolution dated 10.06.2005 is arbitrary. He would submit that even this Court has clarified why a non teaching staff promoted to the post of a teaching staff can not be reduced to a honorarium while even his earlier post was on regular pay scale.

¶38

(c) Mr. Kagane, learned Assistant Government Pleader would fairly agree with the submission as regards to the view taken by this Court in a series of matters. He submits that the said view is yet undisturbed. However, Mr. Kagane places on record a Government Resolution dated 25.03.2026 and submits that the State Government has superseded the Clause 8 of the Government Resolution dated 10.06.2005. As such, Mr. Kagane submits that now the provision of appointment of a non teaching employee on the post of Shikshan Sevak itself is not in existence, and hence the cause in the Writ Petition no more survives.

¶39

4. Consideration:

¶40

(a) It is no more res integra that a non teaching employee of a private school can be appointed on the teaching post subject to fulfillment of the necessary qualification. However, controversy arose whenever in such

¶41

( 6 ) WP 3696 of 2026

¶42

circumstances the Zilla Parishad authorities approved regular pay scale only after completion of three years from such placement. That, there the authorities granted approval to such appointees on honorarium for initial three years giving reference to the clause 8 of the Government Resolution dated 10.06.2005 which introduced modified Shikshan Sevak Scheme.

¶43

(b) Clause 8 of the Government Resolution dated 10.06.2005 reads thus:

¶44

^8- f’k{kdsRrj deZpkÚ;kus ek/;fed f’k{kdkalkBh ok dfu”B egkfo|ky;hu f’k{kdkalkBh vko’;d rh ‘kS{kf.kd vgZrk izkIr dsyh vkf.k tj R;k laoxkZps in ek/;fed ‘kkGsr ok mPp ek/;fed ‘kkGsr @ dfu”B egkfo|ky;kr miyC/k vlsy rj] v’kk izdj.kh lnjgw f’k{kdsrj deZpkÚ;kl f’k{k.klsod Eg.kwup fu;qDrh |koh ykxsy o R;kauk f’k{k.klsodkpsp eku/ku vkf.k brj loZ vVh o ‘krhZ ykxw gksrhy] ek= v’kk f’k{kdsrj deZpkÚ;kph iwohZph lsok gh lsokfuo`Rrh osruklkBh xzká /kjrk ;sbZy-*

¶45

(c) While dealing on the controversy, a profitable reference can be made to a judgment and order passed by this Court in the case of Shivaji Lawate Versus

¶46

State and ors. [2025:BHC-KOL:3675-DB]. For the sake of convenience, relevant portion of the findings are reproduced as follows:

¶47

(7.1) It is pertinent to note that although Clause 8 of the Government Resolution dated 10^th June 2005 is titled as

¶48

( 7 )

¶49

WP 3696 of 2026

¶50

relating to ‘appointment’, its contents clearly indicate that it operates as a promotional avenue for members of the nonteaching staff.

¶51

(7.2) It is not in dispute that the placement of non-teaching staff of aided private schools on teaching posts, subject to the availability of a clear vacancy and the possession of requisite qualification is permissible. In such circumstances, if an employee who is already drawing a regular pay scale on a nonteaching post is placed on a teaching post, i.e., as a Shikshan Sevak, on a mere honorarium, such an employee would undoubtedly suffer pecuniary loss and his interest would be jeopardized. This would result in a drastic reduction from a regular pay scale to a fixed honorarium.

¶52

(7.3) Hence, Clause 8 of the Government Resolution dated 10^th June 2005 is required to be construed as treating such placement, as contemplated therein, to be a ‘promotion’ and not a fresh appointment. Profitable reference may be made to the judgment and order of this Court in Usha Baliram Masal vs. Hind Seva Mandal [Writ Petition No. 3167 of 2019]. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced below.

¶53

“1. The petitioner seeks directions against the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on vacant post of 'Shikshan Sevak'.

¶54

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per Government Resolution dated 10.06.2005 the petitioner is eligible to be appointed as 'Shikshan Sevak'. The petitioner is already working as 'Peon'. The petitioner has acquired the qualiication of B.A., B.P.Ed. and is qualiied to be appointed as 'Shikshan Sevak' and the post is also available with respondent no. 4.

¶55

Mr. Dixit, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that the management would consider the claim of the petitioner on its own merits. The management will have to consider seniority and cases of other employees also.

¶56

( 8 )

¶57

WP 3696 of 2026

¶58

The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that it is for the management to appoint the petitioner. The Government Resolution dated 10.06.2005 authorises the management to take steps in that regard.

¶59

The petitioner is seeking benefit of Government Resolution dated 10.06.2005, though the statute does not prescribe promotional channel from non-teaching to teaching staff, however, the State through it's School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai has issued Government Resolution dated 10.06.2005. Clause 8 of the said Government Resolution reads thus-

¶60

^8f’k{kdsrj deZpkÚ;kus ek/;fed f’k{kdkalkBh ok dfu”B egkfo|ky;hu f’k{kdkalkBh vko’;d rh ‘kS{kf.kd vgZrk izkIr dsyh vkf.k tj R;k laoxkZps in ek/;fed ‘kkGsr ok mPp ek/;fed ‘kkGsr @ dfu”B egkfo|ky;kr miyC/k vlsy rj] v’kk izdj.kh lnjgw f’k{kdsrj deZpkÚ;kl f’k{k.klsod Eg.kwup fu;qDrh |koh ykxsy o R;kauk f’k{k.klsodkapsp eku/ku vkf.k brj loZ vVh o ‘krhZ ykxw gksrhy- ek= v’kk f’k{kdsrj deZpkÚ;kph iwohZph lsok gh lsokfuo`Rrh osruklkBh xzke /kjrk ;sbZy-*

¶61

Reading the said clause, it is manifest that a nonteaching employee after acquiring the qualification can be appointed as 'Shikshan Sevak' in the secondary school or the junior college and his earlier services shall be counted for the purpose of pension. The only rider is that he is to be appointed as 'Shikshan Sevak' and he would be paid honorarium as applicable to 'Shikshan Sevak'.

¶62

The Clause 8 read as it is, is in the nature of providing a promotional avenue to an employee of non-teaching staff. The Clause 8 clarifies that earlier services shall be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. It would not be a case of an appointment afresh but promoting a person from the non-teaching staff though as 'Shikshan Sevak.

¶63

We are not called upon to comment upon the legality of the said clause as the same is not assailed before us.

¶64

( 9 )

¶65

WP 3696 of 2026

¶66

As the clause is relied by all the respective parties, we are passing orders on the basis of the same.

¶67

The management may consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment as 'Shikshan Sevak', as per Clause 8 of the said Government Resolution dated 10.06.2005 on its own merits, expeditiously and preferably within a period of two (2) months. The Education Officer shall consider the proposal in tune with Clause 8 of the said Government Resolution dated 10.06.2005. The same shall not be rejected on the ground of availability of surplus candidates.”

¶68

(7.4) Except for the reliance placed by the Education Officer on Clause 8 of the Government Resolution dated 10^th June 2005, we find no logic in the order or the approach of the Respondent authorities in withholding the regular pay scale of the Petitioner, for the probation period of three years.

¶69

(7.5) This is primarily for the reason that the placement of the Petitioner on the post of Shikshan Sevak (Assistant Teacher) is by way of promotion and not a fresh appointment. Indeed, it would amount to gross discrimination if, under the given circumstances the Petitioner is not granted the regular pay scale applicable to the post of Shikshan Sevak (Assistant Teacher) even for the initial three years, commencing from the date of his promotion to the subject post.

¶70

(7.6) While considering a case of a Peon who was promoted to the post of Shikshan Sevak under circumstances similar to the present case, this Court (Nagpur Bench) in Shri Suhas s/o Rangraoji More vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (Writ Petition No. 7706 of 2022) observed as follows:

¶71

“ 16. In this regard, it needs to be noted that the

¶72

petitioner was appointed as a Peon on a regular permanent post. His promotion as Shikshan Sevak deprives him of the pay scale as well as other service benefits that he enjoyed in the post of lower grade. Evidently, such promotion does not enhance his prospect but severally prejudices his interest in every

¶73

( 10 )

¶74

WP 3696 of 2026

¶75

way. This anomaly can only be obliterated by treating the promotional post as that of the Assistant Teacher and by granting regular pay scale and other service benefits enjoyed by Assistant Teacher, albeit, the promotional post is termed as Shikshan Sevak.

¶76

Under the circumstances, it is held that (i) Clause 8 of G.R. dated 10.06.2005, which stipulates promotion of non teaching staf as Shikshan Sevak on payment of honorarium is arbitrary and discriminatory. (ii) The petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Assistant Teacher with the prescribed pay scale at par with pay scale of other similarly placed promotees. (iii) Respondent No.5 Management to modify the appointment order dated 29.10.2021 to the extent of appointing/promoting the petitioner as Assistant Teacher instead of Shikshan Sevak. (iv) Respondent No.5-Management, is directed to submit the proposal to respondent No.4 for approval of appointment/promotion of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher with pay scale of Assistant Teacher within four weeks from the date of the order. (v) Respondent No.4 to consider the same as expeditiously as possible in any event within four weeks from the date of the receipt of the proposal. Rule is made absolute in above terms.”

¶77

(7.7) For the reasons stated above, we have no doubt that the placement of the Petitioner from the post of Laboratory Assistant to that of Shikshan Sevak constitutes a promotion and not a fresh appointment.

¶78

(7.8) Consequently, the Petitioner must be held entitled to the regular pay scale applicable to the subject matter post, instead of the honorarium. The reliance placed by the Education Officer on Clause 8 of the Government Resolution dated 10^th June 2005 is, therefore misplaced. The Education Oicer is directed to rectify the approval order dated 29^th June 2010 and to hold the Petitioner entitled to the regular pay scale that was then applicable to an Assistant Teacher, instead of the honorarium.”

¶79

( 11 )

¶80

WP 3696 of 2026

¶81

(d) We have no reason to take any different view than the view expressed in

¶82

the Shivaji Lawate case (supra). However, we now have to deal with the latest development brought to our notice by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Kagane. He submits that vide Government Resolution dated 25.03.2026, Clause 8 of Government Resolution dated 10.06.2005 is overruled/superceded. He submits that this development takes away the force in the writ petition. Relevant portion of Government Resolution dated 25.03.2026 is reproduced as follows :

¶83

“f’k{kdsRrj deZpkÚ;kus ek/;fed f’k{kdkalkBh ok dfu”B egkfo|ky;hu f’k{kdkalkBh vko’;d rh ‘kS{kf.kd vgZrk izkIr dsyh vkf.k tj R;k laoxkZps in ek/;fed ‘kkGsr ok mPp ek/;fed ‘kkGsr @ dfu”B egkfo|ky;kr miyC/k vlsy rj] v’kk izdj.kh lnjgw f’k{kdsrj deZpkÚ;kl f’k{k.klsod Eg.kwup fu;qDrh |koh ykxsy o R;kauk f’k{k.klsodkpsp eku/ku vkf.k brj loZ vVh o ‘krhZ ykxw gksrhy] ek= v’kk f’k{kdsrj deZpkÚ;kph iwohZph lsok gh lsokfuo`Rrh osruklkBh xzká /kjrk ;sbZy-*

¶84

lnj rjrwn ;k ‘kklu fu.kZ;kUo;s vf/kØfer dj.;kr ;sr vkgsf’k{kdsRrj inko:u f’k{kd@f’k{k.k lsod inkoj fu;qDrhckcr dks.kR;kgh ‘kklu vkns’kkr@ifji=dkr@lays[kkr vlysY;k izR;{k vFkok vizR;{k rjrqnh ns[khy R;k e;kZnsr rkRdkG izHkkokus vf/kØfer dj.;kr ;sr vkgsr-”

¶85

(e) We do not comprehend with the submissions advanced by Mr. Kagane, learned Assistant Government Pleader. The development is vide a Government Resolution dated 25.03.2026. The Petitioner was appointed as Shikshan Sevak

¶86

( 12 ) WP 3696 of 2026

¶87

(Assistant Teacher) wayback on 01.10.2021. Initial approval a Shikshan Sevak was granted on 10.06.2022, while the subsequent approval as an Assistant Teacher on regular pay scale S-14 was granted on 18.02.2025. As such, Petitioner’s case stands squarely covered by the observations of this Court in the case of Shivaji Lawate (Supra) and identical cases. The subsequent Government Resolution dated 25.03.2026 would not be retrospectively applicable to the Petitioner.

¶88

(f) Mr. Kagane also refers to the Judgment rendered by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Sant Bhagwan Baba Shikshan Mandal and ors. Vs. Gunwant and ors. (2024 INSC 405) . Referring to its paragraph No. 14, Mr. Kagane submits that the Honorable Supreme Court has held that the appointees from non teaching staff to teaching staff shall be entitle only for honorarium for initial three years till they are treated as Assistant Teacher from Shikshan Sevak.

¶89

(g) Here too, the proposition sought to be impressed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader falls short of merit. For the sake of convenience, paragraph No.14 of Sant Bhagwan Baba case (supra) is reproduced as below :

¶90

The records reveal that while issuing notice in the present appeal on 18^th December, 2009, operation of the impugned judgment was stayed. As a result, the

¶91

( 13 )

¶92

WP 3696 of 2026

¶93

respondent no.5 has been continuing to discharge his duties in the appellant no.3-School as a Physical Education teacher, on the post of an Assistant Teacher. As noticed above, the respondent no.5 was duly served in the present appeal but he has elected not to appear or participate in the proceedings. Now that the impugned judgment has been upheld by this Court and the respondent no.1 has been held entitled to appointment to the post of Shikshan Sevak w.e.f. 01 January, 2010 and on expiry of a period of three years reckoned therefrom, to the post of Assistant Teacher, this Court is required to consider balancing the equities. We are informed that in all these years, respondent no.1 has been serving on the post of Peon in the appellant no.3School. Though learned counsel for the respondent no.1 states that the financial impact of depriving him for appointment to the post of Shikshan Sevak in terms of the impugned judgment comes to ₹ .21,00,000/(Rupees Twenty One Lakhs) approximately, we are of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the appellants are directed to pay a consolidated sum of ₹ .10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs) to the respondent no.1 on account of the financial loss incurred by him and for his non-appointment to the subject post. Needful shall be done within eight weeks. For purposes of claiming seniority and retiral benefits, the notional date of his appointment to the post of Shikshan Sevak shall be reckoned as 01 January, 2010. Respondent no.3 shall issue a letter indicating the pay scale of the respondent no.1 by notionally computing it on the post of Shikshan Sevak w.e.f. 01^st January, 2010 and to the post of Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 01^st January, 2013 and furnish a copy thereof to the appellants within three months.

¶94

(h) Unlike submitted by Mr. Kagane, this issue was not before the Hon’ble Supreme Court nor has rendered any such observations as are sought to be

¶95

( 14 ) WP 3696 of 2026

¶96

placed into service by Mr. Kagane. The issue of payment of honorarium/regular pay scale was not at all before the Honorable Supreme Court in the given citation. The Honorable Supreme Court observed the nomenclature of the subject-matter post. Mr. Kagane’s submission is factually incorrect as such.

¶97

(i) In view of above findings, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner has made out a case of our interference u/a 226 of the Indian Constitution. Hence we pass following order.

¶98

O R D E R

¶99

A. The Writ Petition is allowed;

¶100

B. The order dated 22.12.2025 (Exhibit – I, Page No.105) is quashed and Set aside.

¶101

C. The approval dated 10.06.2022 to the petitioner’s appointment on honorarium w.e.f. 1.10.2021 for three years, is held to be erroneous.

¶102

D. The Respondent no.4 Education Officer shall issue

¶103

corrected approval order in the name of the Petitioner reckoning his services on regular pay scale applicable to

¶104

( 15 ) WP 3696 of 2026

¶105

Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 01.10.2021, within a period of 08 weeks herefrom and shall release the salary dues accordingly;

¶106

E. The approval order dated 18.02.2025 shall stand merged in the corrected approval order as ordered above.

¶107

F. The petitioner shall be paid the salary dues w.e.f. 01.10.2021 adjusting such amount, that is already paid.

¶108

G. Rule made absolute in above terms.

¶109

( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )

¶110

( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )

¶111

PRW

Rajeshwar Laxman Waghmare v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary Department of School Education and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeshwar Laxman Waghmare v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary Department of School Education 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

Ashtikar Narendra Kishanrao and Others vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Bhalke Mahesh Chandrakant vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Rohan Machindra Choure vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Shobha Narendra Kabra vs State of Maharashtra Revenue Department

Shivaji Bhivaji Sasane vs Shri Kailash Datkil

Kalyan Ashuruba Kute and Other vs the State of Mahatrashtra through the Secretary