Samratdada Tanajirao Mane vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Mr. Srujan Sankpal i/b Mr. P. S. Bhavake for the Petitioner. Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Utkarsh Desai for the Respondent No. 6 and 7.

¶10

——————

¶11

Coram : Madhav J. Jamdar & Pravin S. Patil, JJ.

¶12

Date : March 6, 2026.

¶13

Oral Judgment [Per Pravin S. Patil, J.] :

¶14

1. Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of parties.

¶15

2. It is not disputed that Respondent No.6-Educational Institution issued the advertisement in daily newspaper “Karmyogi” on 4^th September 2009. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the Petitioner applied for the post and then by conducting the selection process, the co-ordination committee of Respondent No.6-educational institution decided to appoint the Petitioner against the post of Assistant Teacher on unaided classes.

¶16

3. In pursuance of the resolution of co-ordination committee, the appointment order came to be issued to the Petitioner on 30^th

¶17

1 of 8

¶18

Patil-SR

¶19

910 wp-6814-2024.doc

¶20

September 2019. The Petitioner accordingly joined the post with efect from 1^st October 2019 and is working on the same post till date.

¶21

4. It is also pointed out by the Petitioner that after his appointment, due to outbreak of covid-19 and lock-down situation, the headmaster of Respondent No.7-secondary school could not immediately submit the proposal for individual approval to the appointment of the Petitioner, but immediately when there was relaxation in the lockdown, on 14^th December 2020 the proposal was forwarded to the the Respondent No.5–Education Oicer.

¶22

5. The proposal dated 14^th December 2020 was returned back pointing out certain deiciencies in the proposal. Therefore, again on 29^th July 2022, the headmaster of Respondent No.7–school submitted proposal for individual approval to the appointment of Petitioner. In response to the same, again deiciencies were pointed out by the Education Oicer and lastly the proposal was submitted on 28^th April 2023 to the oice of Education Oicer. The Education Oicer by the impugned order/communication dated 9^th May 2023 has communicated to the headmaster of the school that for given eight reasons, the individual approval to the the Petitioner’s appointment cannot be granted. The said reasons are as under :

¶23

[1] The proposal is not submitted as per the check-list of oice;

¶24

[2] The advertisement for the post was not published in 2

¶25

2 of 8

¶26

Patil-SR

¶27

910 wp-6814-2024.doc

¶28

newspapers as per Government Resolution dated 6^th February 2012;

¶29

[3] The State Government till date did not issue any instructions to grant approval to the teachers appointed in non-grant-in-aid schools; [4] The documents enclosed along with the proposal are not countersigned;

¶30

[5] The roster duly approved by the Reservation Cell, Pune is not enclosed with the proposal;

¶31

[6] As per Government Resolution dated 10^th June 2022, the proposal was required to be submitted within a period of 3 months, but the same was not submitted within 3 months;

¶32

[7] The Shikshan Sevak scheme is not applicable to the employees in non-grant-in-aid school; and

¶33

[8] The Attendance Register of the employees was not forwarded along with the proposal.

¶34

6. In respect of these deiciencies, the submission of Petitioner is that deiciency Nos.1, 4, 5 and 8 can be complied with by him by providing necessary documents. In respect of deiciency Nos.2, 3, 6 and 7, the Petitioner has made submission that all these deiciencies pointed by the Education Oicer are not in accordance with law and therefore indulgence of this Court is necessary in the matter.

¶35

7. In respect of advertisement in 2 newspapers as per Government Resolution dated 6^th February 2012, the Petitioner has pointed out that this deiciency pointed out by the Education Oicer is in violation of

¶36

3 of 8

¶37

Patil-SR

¶38

910 wp-6814-2024.doc

¶39

Rule 9 sub-clause (2-A) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 [for short, “MEPS Rules” ]. According to him, Rule 9 of MEPS Rules provides the publication of advertisement in at least one local newspaper having wide circulation in the region. Accordingly, the management has published the advertisement in widely circulated newspaper “Karmyogi” and therefore this deiciency raised by the Education Oicer needs to be set aside.

¶40

8. In respect of deiciency no.3 that there are no instructions from the State Government regarding grant of approval to the teachers appointed in non-grant-in-aid in schools, it is pointed out that as per Section 3 of the the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 [for short, “MEPS Act” ], the provisions of the MEPS Act and MEPS Rules are equally applicable to the employees appointed on grant-in-aid as well as non-grant-in-aid classes. Therefore, this deiciency pointed out by the Eduction Oicer does not stand and therefore the Petitioner who is appointed by following due procedure of law is entitled for the grant of approval.

¶41

9. In respect of deiciency no.6 that, the proposal should have been submitted within 3 months as per Government Resolution dated 10^th June 2022, the Petitioner has pointed out that after his appointment on 30^th September 2019, immediately the proposal was submitted. It

¶42

4 of 8

¶43

Patil-SR

¶44

910 wp-6814-2024.doc

¶45

is also pointed out that time and again certain deiciencies were pointed out and therefore lastly the proposal was submitted on 20^th April 2023, therefore this deiciency raised by the Education Oicer is incorrect. Furthermore, as per Government Resolution dated 10^th June 2022, the mandate was that those employees who are working in a private school and whose proposals are not till date forwarded, it was directed that same should be submitted within 3 months after the issuance of Government Resolution dated 10^th June 2022. Hence, this Government Resolution is not applicable in the matter.

¶46

10. Deiciency no.7 that Shikshan Sevak scheme is not applicable to the employees of non-grant-in-aid school is correct, however, in the present case, the Petitioner is not appointed as Shikshan Sevak, he was appointed as Assistant Teacher. Hence, this deiciency pointed out by the Education Oicer is incorrect.

¶47

11. Learned AGP strongly opposed the present petition stating that deiciencies pointed out by the Education Oicer are in accordance with law and the relevant Government Policy. Therefore, according to him, it is not a it case for interference by this Court in the matter. He further pointed out that the Education Oicer by his communication dated 9^th May 2023 has only pointed out the deiciencies and the Petitioner always has a right to satisfy those deiciencies and get the approval. Hence, the petition is premature.

¶48

5 of 8

¶49

Patil-SR

¶50

910 wp-6814-2024.doc

¶51

12. Learned AGP further stated that by Government Resolution dated 20^th June 2018, the scheme of Pavitra Portal is applicable to the employees appointed on non-grant-in-aid classes and though this deiciency / objection is not recorded in the impugned communication dated 9^th May 2023, is also one of the major deiciencies that can be considered by this Court to reject the proposal of Petitioner for grant of approval. Hence, according to him, there is no merit in the present petition and therefore the same deserve to be dismissed.

¶52

13. In the light of above submissions made by both the parties and on perusal of the record, it is not disputed that the advertisement was issued by Respondent No.6 on 4^th September 2019 in daily newspaper “Karmyogi”. In pursuance of the same, selection process was carried out and accordingly by order dated 30^th September 2019, the Petitioner was appointed against the post of Assistant Teacher at the Respondent No.7-school on unaided classes.

¶53

14. In our opinion, Rule 9 sub-clause (2-A) of MEPS Rules contemplates the advertisement to be published in at least one newspaper. Accordingly, the management has issued advertisement in daily newspaper “Karmyogi”. Hence, the deiciency pointed out that advertisement was not issued in 2 daily newspapers is not justiied in the matter.

¶54

6 of 8

¶55

Patil-SR

¶56

910 wp-6814-2024.doc

¶57

15. In respect of deiciency that there are no directions of the State Government to grant approval to the employees appointed in the nongrant-in-aid school, in our opinion, as per Section 3 of MEPS Act there is no discrimination between the employees appointed on grant-in-aid classes and non-grant-in-aid classes. Therefore, there is no need of any instructions from the State Government in the matter.

¶58

16. The Government Resolution dated 10^th June 2022 is not applicable in the matter because admittedly, after the appointment of Petitioner, before the Government Resolution dated 10^th June 2022 came into operation, the proposal was forwarded to the oice of Education Oicer. Hence, this deiciency also does not survive in the matter.

¶59

17. In respect of non-applicability of the scheme of Shikshan Sevak to the non-grant-in-aid classes is correct, but the same is not applicable in the matter as the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher.

¶60

18. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the Education Oicer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli has wrongly recorded deiciency Nos.2, 3, 6 and 7 in the impugned communication dated 9^th May 2023. In view of the above, in our opinion, the following order will subserve the ends of justice in the matter. Hence, we proceed to pass following order. :

¶61

7 of 8

¶62

Patil-SR

¶63

910 wp-6814-2024.doc

¶64

-: O R D E R :-

¶65

(I) Petition is partly allowed.

¶66

(II) The impugned order / communication dated 9^th May 2023 to the extent of imposing condition Nos.2, 3, 6 and 7 is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶67

(III) Respondent No.6-Institute and Respondent No.7Headmaster of the school are hereby directed to forward fresh proposal to the Education Oicer within a period of 15 days from the date of this order, to the Education Oicer.

¶68

(IV) The Education Oicer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli after receipt of proposal, ix a date for hearing on proposal and after considering the submissions of the parties decide the proposal within 15 days thereafter without insisting conditions which are set aside by this Court.

¶69

(V) All the issues are expressly kept open to be raised and decided by the Education Oicer.

¶70

(VI) No order as to costs.

¶71

19. Rule is made absolute in above terms.

¶72

[Pravin S. Patil, J.] [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.]

¶73

8 of 8

¶74

Patil-SR

Samratdada Tanajirao Mane v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samratdada Tanajirao Mane v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chidanand Bhimsha Dindure vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Shailesh Sumatilal Gujar and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Chief and Ors.

Dr. Vipul Vilas Shah vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Kazim Scutiry Group Thr. Its Proprietor S.G. Agsapure vs Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Prakashganga and Ors.

Anil Manohar Tupe vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary and Ors.

Kavita Pramod Rathod Alias Kavita Sanju Chavan vs the State of Maharashtra and Others