Bombay High Court
Asmita Vikas Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra And 4 Ors on 22 January, 2026
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik, S. M. Modak
2026:BHC-OS:3562-DB
905-wp 527-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 527 OF 2019
Asmita Vikas Patil
Age-32 years,
R/at H. No.164, Devkrupa Niwas,
Talavli Naka, Talavli,
Mumbai-400 708. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Department of Sports and Education
Through the Office of the Government Pleader
Original Side, Bombay High Court.
2. Education Inspector
Brihanmumbai North Division, Mumbai
New Administrative Building,
Building No.2, 2nd Floor, R. C. Marg,
Chembur (East), Mumbai-400071.
3. Director, Education
Senapati Bapat Marg (Balbharti)
Pune.
4. The Head Master,
Shri Sai Vidyalay Secondary School,
Building No. 91, PMGP Colony,
Mankhurd, Mumbai - 400043.
5. Girish Educational Trust
Secondary School, Building No.91,
PMGP Colony, Mankhurd, ... Respondents
Mumbai - 400 043.
__________________________
Mr. Akhil Kupade i/b Mr. Ved Chetan Patil for the Petitioner.
Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3-State.
Mr. Niranjan Bhavake a/w. Mr. Anurag Ramekar i/b Bhavake and
Associates for Respondent Nos.4 & 5.
__________________________
Amk 1/7
::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2026 21:14:36 :::
905-wp 527-19.doc
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
DATED : 22nd JANUARY, 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER M. S. KARNIK, J.)
1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 17th March, 2017 refusing to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner. The Petitioner seeks a direction to Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to grant approval and confirmation to the appointment of the Petitioner to the post of English teacher in Respondent No.4-School with arrears and consequential benefits.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the Petitioner acquired B.A. qualification in the year 2005 and B.Ed. in the year 2008. Respondent No.2-Education Inspector accorded permission to fill clear and vacant posts vide communication dated 28th November, 2014. On 4th December, 2014, Respondent No.4-School's management issued an advertisement in daily newspapers i.e. Lokmat and Pudhari to fill the vacant posts from open category. The Petitioner applied for and was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak vide Order dated 30th December, 2014 by following due procedure mandated under Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977.
3. The management submitted a proposal to Respondent No.2 seeking Amk 2/7 ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2026 21:14:36 ::: 905-wp 527-19.doc approval to the appointment of the Petitioner. Respondent No.2 vide Order dated 1st January, 2015 refused to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner on the ground that there was deficiency in the proposal. The Respondent-management was directed to attend the camp to rectify the deficiency. However, according to learned counsel for the Petitioner, the camp had never been convened.
4. An application was made under the Right to Information Act in March, 2018 as to why the approval of the Petitioner is not granted. By communication dated 19th March, 2018, Respondent No.2 informed that on account of availability of surplus teachers, approval cannot be granted. This fact has been communicated by Respondent No.2 to Respondent No.3 vide communication dated 17th March, 2017. This communication dated 17th March, 2017 is impugned in this Petition.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned AGP for Respondent No.1 to 3 and learned counsel for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
6. The proposal of the Petitioner has been rejected on the following grounds:-
(i) Appointment of the Petitioner was made during the ban period on recruitment of teachers imposed in terms of GR dated 2 nd May, 2012.
(ii) The appointment of the Petitioner cannot be approved unless Amk 3/7 ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2026 21:14:36 ::: 905-wp 527-19.doc and until surplus teachers in non-minority Marathi schools are absorbed and
(iii) The respondents-management in violation of the backlog of reserve category, appointed the Petitioner from the open category.
7. It is a matter of record that Respondent No.2 had accorded permission to fill the clear and vacant posts by communication dated 20 th November, 2014. Consequently, an advertisement was published in Lokmat and Pudhari newspapers. There was no mention in the communication dated 20th November, 2014 that there was availability of surplus teachers. On the basis of the permission granted, the management proceeded to fill the clear and vacant posts. It is not expected of the management to keep the posts vacant indefinitely as that would have serious detrimental effect on the students who are studying in the school. Nothing is there on record to indicate that the Petitioner's appointment as a Shikshan Sevak is contrary to the provisions of Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The Petitioner was appointed after following due procedure w.e.f. 30th December, 2014. Had the management been informed of the availability of surplus teachers, they would not have proceeded with the filling up of the vacant posts. The surplus teachers were never sent. Therefore, the ground that the approval cannot be Amk 4/7 ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2026 21:14:36 ::: 905-wp 527-19.doc granted because of the availability of surplus teachers is untenable.
8. The next ground on which the approval has been rejected is that there was a ban on the recruitment of teachers and such appointment made by the management is illegal. It is pertinent to note that the permission was granted on 20th November, 2014 to fill up the clear and vacant posts pursuant to which the appointment was made. Moreover, the appointment was actually made after issuance of advertisement in daily newspapers i.e. Lokmat and Pudhari. The question is whether such recruitment was made during the ban period. This Court in Smt. Munoli Rajashri Karabasappa Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. by an Order dated 10th July, 2017 in Writ Petition No. 8587 of 2016 and connected Writ Petitions had considered similar issues and held that by the GR dated 4 th September, 2013 itself, ban has been relaxed insofar as the subjects of English, Maths and Science are concerned. In the present case as well, Respondent No.2 has not sent the surplus teacher though the permission was requested to fill the vacant post of an Assistant Teacher in the school run by the Respondents-management. Thus, this Court in the aforesaid decision has clearly held that, the ban could not be applicable to 3 categories, one of which is appointment made for the subject of English. In the present case, the Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher to teach English subject. The ban was therefore not applicable. Amk 5/7 ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2026 21:14:36 :::
905-wp 527-19.doc
9. Next ground on which the proposal was rejected is that there was a backlog of various reserved categories. In this regard, we may refer to the Affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Respondents-management. The roster indicates 3 vacant posts under the Open category. The Respondents- management in the Affidavit has clearly stated that the appointment of the Petitioner is against a clear and vacant post of a Shikshan Sevak for the English subject, available under the Open category. The same has been done after obtaining NOC from Respondent No.2-Education Inspector prior to the recruitment of the Petitioner for the post of Shikshan Sevak. In para 3, a stand has been taken that due to the sad demise of one Assistant Teacher Smt. Mamata Nathuram Kamble on 20 th August, 2013, a vacancy in the post of Shikshan Sevak for English subject was created at the Respondent No.4-School. As per the roster, there was backlog of one post of SC category, one post of OBC category and 3 posts of Open category. Thus, having filled up the vacant posts available for the Open category pursuant to the NOC received, in our opinion, the rejection of the proposal for approval on the ground that there is backlog of reserved categories is completely untenable. The impugned Order is, therefore, quashed and set aside.
10. Respondent No.2 is directed to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner in accordance with the proposal that was submitted within a Amk 6/7 ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2026 21:14:36 ::: 905-wp 527-19.doc period of six weeks from the communication of a copy of this Order. The arrears to be paid within a period of six months.
11. The Petition is disposed of.
(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.) Amk 7/7 ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2026 21:14:36 :::