Bombay High Court
Bajrang Shankarrao Parsure And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 24 December, 2025
Author: R.G. Avachat
Bench: R.G. Avachat
2025:BHC-AUG:37494-DB
1 89(rr).WP.5201.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5201 OF 2021
1. Bajrang Shankarrao Parsure,
2. Naveenreddy Rajareddy Lokawad ... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
through The Secretary
Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
3. Hutatma Pansare Memorial School
Dharmabad, Tq. Dharmabad,
Dist. Nanded.
thr. President/Secretary.
4. Hutatma Pansare Primary School
Dharmabad, Tq. Dharmabad,
Dist. Nanded Thr. Head Master ... RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. V.S. Panpatte
Addl. G.P. for Respondent No.1 : Mr. S.D. Ghayal
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mrs. Preeti V. Diggikar
Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4 : Mr. Prakash G. Gunale
...
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
Reserved on : 01.12.2025
Pronounced on : 24.12.2025
JUDGMENT ( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) :
1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.
2 89(rr).WP.5201.21.odt
2. By the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 05.05.2020, passed by the respondent No.2 - Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded, by which the proposal seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioners has been turned down. 3 The petitioners claim to have been appointed by the respondent No.3 - Management to the post of Shikshan Sevaks by an appointment order dated 19.10.2015 pursuant to an advertisement issued in newspaper namely "Dainik Mahasagar Samachar" dated 01.10.2015.
3.1. The Management accordingly said to have submitted a proposal to the respondent No.2 - Education Officer for grant of approval to the appointments of the petitioner on 21.10.2015, however, by the impugned order the respondent No.2 - Education Officer has turned down the proposal on the following grounds viz:
a. That there is no prior permission obtained for issuance of advertisement pursuant to which the petitioners have been appointed.
b. Without verifying the roster from the Assistant Commissioner -
B.C. Cell, Aurangabad, the petitioners claim to have been appointed on 19.10.2015.
c. At the time of appointment the petitioners were not possessing the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) Certificate. The 3 89(rr).WP.5201.21.odt appointments are contrary to the Government Resolution dated 24.08.2018 as the Management has not taken steps for absorbing surplus teachers.
d. By virtue of Government Resolution dated 23.06.2017, the appointments of the petitioners are not made through Pavitra Portal.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - Education Officer and learned counsel for the respondent No.3 - Management.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is erroneous for the reason that the Management before issuance of advertisement dated 01.10.2015 had made an application seeking prior permission to advertise the posts on which the petitioners have been appointed. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No.3 - Management has got the roster verified from the Assistant Commissioner B.C. Cell, Aurangabad. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submit that though at the time of appointments, the petitioners were not possessing the TET qualification, however, later on the petitioners have passed the TET examination on 05.08.2020. It is further contended that the Government Resolution dated 24.08.2018, will have no application since the appointments of the petitioners have been made prior to the said Government Resolution and lastly the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even the 4 89(rr).WP.5201.21.odt Government Resolution dated 23.06.2017 would not be applicable as the appointments of the petitioners are made on 19.10.2015.
6. To buttress his submission that if the Management has made an application seeking prior permission to issue an advertisement and if the Education Officer do not take any decision on the said application, the Management would be at liberty to advertise the posts and also can fill up the same as the Management cannot keep the posts vacant for considerable period has pressed into service the judgment of this Court in the case of Baliram Pandurang Salunke Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors; decided by this Court on 10.11.2025 in Writ Petition No.11172/2019.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - Education Officer would submit that the respondent No.3 - Management at no point of time has made an application as sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners as atleast the respondent No.2 has not received any such application and, therefore, there is no question of issuing advertisement. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that the Newspaper viz 'Daily Mahasagar Samachar' in which the petitioners are claiming that an advertisement was issued, is completely unknown in the Nanded District nor it has any recognition or wide circulation in the said District. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would further contend that even the copy of proposal annexed with the writ petition purported to have been submitted on 21.10.2015, goes 5 89(rr).WP.5201.21.odt to show that at the bottom of said copy of proposal the endorsement from the office of respondent No.2 shows the date of 30.12.2019 and thus the documents create serious doubt about its genuineness. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 lastly submits that these documents appear to be prepared backdated in order to overcome with the reasons assigned by the respondent No.2 in the impugned order. The learned counsel, by justifying the impugned order, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 - Management by relying on the documents annexed with the affidavit-in-reply submits that the application dated 28.10.2014 addressed to the office of respondent No.2 seeking prior permission has not been decided. It is thus contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 - Management that as no decision was taken on the said application, the respondent No.3 has proceeded to issue an advertisement in "Daily Mahasagar Samachar" on 01.10.2015 and they have selected and thereafter appointed the petitioners by an appointment order dated 19.10.2015. The learned counsel further submits that the roster has also been verified and, therefore, the reasons assigned by respondent No.2 - Education Officer in the impugned order are unsustainable and, therefore, prays for passing an appropriate order.
9. After considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 -
6 89(rr).WP.5201.21.odt Education Officer and the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 - Management also after going through the documents annexed with the writ petition, we find it necessary to have a close scrutiny of these documents.
10. The documents annexed at page No.21 of the writ petition purported to be a proposal submitted by the respondent No.3 - Management dated 21.10.2015 clearly goes to show that the same is shown to have been submitted to the office of the respondent No.2 on 30.12.2019 and there is no explanation coming forth either from the petitioners as well as the respondent No.3 - Management as to why there is delay of four years in submitting the said proposal.
11. Perusal of application purported to have been made to the office of respondent No.2 seeking prior permission dated 28.10.2014 shows that there is no endorsement from the office of respondent No.2 of having received the said application. Even while going through the advertisement purported to have been issued on 01.10.2015 by respondent No.3 - Management in the so called "Daily Mahasagar Samachar" dated 01.10.2015 would show that it is merely calling upon the candidates to walk-in interview without giving any necessary details in the same. It is also interesting to note that advertisement is shown to have been issued on 01.10.2015 by the respondent No.3 - Management, whereas another document has been placed on record in the nature of corrigendum dated 04.10.2015 to the extent of giving clarification 7 89(rr).WP.5201.21.odt about providing reservation to the post advertised.
12. After having gone through all these documents this Court finds that the advertisement dated 01.10.2015 creates doubt for the reason that, the manner in which the said advertisement is shown to have been issued is not complying with the necessary requirements of proviso to Section 5(1) of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Act, 1977 (the Act of 1977). Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that the said advertisement shown to have been issued in so called "Daily Mahasagar Samachar" cannot be said to be a newspaper having wide circulation and as rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that the said newspaper is totally unknown in the entire district of Nanded without any recognition and wide circulation. For better appreciation we reproduce the copy of said advertisement as it is :
8 89(rr).WP.5201.21.odt
13. We have also perused the so called corrigendum dated 04.10.2015, which also creates a doubt as, the said corrigendum is shown to have been issued by the headmaster alone and not by the Secretary of the Respondent No.3 - Management whereas so called advertisement dated 01.10.2015 is shown to have been issued in the name of both the Secretary of the Management as well as the Head Master. Similarly we reproduce the copy of corrigendum as below :
14. Once having observed that there is no endorsement on the application dated 28.10.2014 seeking prior permission from the office of respondent No.2 before issuing advertisement, shows that the respondent No.3 has issued the so called advertisement unilaterally without 9 89(rr).WP.5201.21.odt obtaining prior permission from the office of respondent No.2 -
Education Officer, therefore, the entire subsequent selection process claimed to have been carried out pursuant to the said advertisement is contrary to proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act of 1977 is reproduced as under :
"5. Certain obligations of Management of private schools (1) The Management shall, as soon as possible fill in, in the manner prescribed, every permanent vacancy in a private school by the appointment of a person duly qualified to fill such vacancy; [Provided that unless such vacancy is to be filled in by promotion, the Management shall, before proceeding to fill such vacancy, ascertain from the Educational Inspector, Greater Bombay, [the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad or, as the case may be, the Director or the officer designated by the Director in respect of schools imparting technical, vocational, art or special education,] whether there is any suitable person available on the event of such person being available, the Management shall appoint that person in such vacancy.]"
15. The proviso to Section 5(1) of the Act of 1977 makes it clear that before undertaking the process for recruitment of the teachers as contemplated under Section 5(2) of the Act of 1977, the Management has to scrupulously follow the same by taking prior permission from the office of respondent No.2. We find that the documents annexed with the writ petition by the petitioners themselves as well as the documents annexed by the respondent No.3 along with its affidavit-in-reply clearly goes to show that the appointments of the petitioners are without following the proviso appended to Section 5 (1) of the Act of 1977. This Court also finds that though the petitioners claim to have been appointed on 19.10.2015, admittedly, they were not possessing the 10 89(rr).WP.5201.21.odt TET certificates which are mandatory so far as the primary school is concerned, acquiring the said qualification in the year 2020 after almost five years from the alleged appointments would be of no consequence.
16. So far as judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Baliram Pandurang Salunke (supra) is concerned, in the said case the authenticity of the application seeking prior permission for issuance of advertisement by the Management was not disputed nor the legality and validity of the advertisement was ever disputed and, therefore, this Court has held in the said judgment that, failure to decide the application seeking prior permission for issuance of advertisement, for a considerable period, entitled the Management to issue an advertisement and it was in that context the said judgment was delivered. The facts in the said case and the case in hand are different. In the present case, we have carefully gone through the documents annexed with the writ petition and the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.3 and we find that the documents annexed with the writ petition are only an eyewash in order to overcome with the findings arrived at by the respondent No.2 - Education Officer as can be seen that the respondent No.2 - Education Officer has filed an affidavit-in-reply on 10.03.2022 by pointing out all these illegalities and in order to overcome with this the respondent No.3 - Management filed its affidavit-in-reply after almost a period of two years i.e. on 08.07.2024 by placing on record the documents which we have referred to above. This Court finds that the 11 89(rr).WP.5201.21.odt appointments of the petitioners are contrary to the provisions of law and this Court cannot endorse the said illegality. This Court finds that directing the respondent No.2 to grant approval to the appointments of the petitioners and more so when the respondent No.3 - Management is receiving grant in aid, that will certainly burden the payment of their salaries from the public exchequer. In that view of the mater, we are not inclined to consider the submissions of the petitioners that they have been appointed by following due procedure of law.
17. This Court had an occasion to consider almost similar issue in the case of Pravin Bodhu Kasbe Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.; 2022(2) Mh.L.J. 241, wherein, this Court has observed thus :
"7. We have undertaken the above exercise in view of the strenuous submissions of the learned advocate representing respondent No. 2 that these three letters were never received by the office of the Education Officer and there is no entry of the said letters in the inward register. With this submission, it is further contended that the Management may have created a record to create an eye-wash that they had made three applications to the Education Officer and that the Education Officer did not respond to these applications and hence the Management, unilaterally proceeded to publish an advertisement in daily newspaper "Bahurangi Varta'. The learned advocate for the Education Officer submits that the department may not even have heard about such newspaper by name 'Bahurangi Varta' in which the advertisement for filling up the posts was purportedly published on 10-9-2017.
8. After considering the submissions of the learned advocate for the respective sides before us, we have noticed the following glaring factors:
(a) There is no evidence of the Management having entered applications in the inward section of respondent No. 2 for seeking permission to resort to a recruitment process.
12 89(rr).WP.5201.21.odt
(b) It cannot be ruled out that the stamp and some signature of an unknown person may have been obtained on the three applications placed before us to create a picture that the Management had been pursuing the Education Officer for permission and that the Education Officer had sat over the three applications.
(c) The learned advocate for the petitioner alleges that one Mrs. Garje from the inward department of the Education Officer has signed on these three applications.
(d) The alleged advertisement has been published in an unknown daily newspaper 'Bahurangi Varta.
(e) An advertisement does not appear to have been published in two widely circulated vernacular newspaper even in district Nanded, as required by law.
(f) Pursuant to the directions of this Court at its Nagpur Bench in Public Interest Litigation No. 8 of 2015 on 24-6-2015, the Pavitra Portal was introduced by the School Education and Sports Department, State of Maharashtra through its Government Resolution dated 23-6-2017. The Pavitra Portal is to ensure a portal to be visible for all the candidates interested in the process of teachers' recruitment.
(g) Pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 23-6- 2017, all such educational institutions including respondent No. 4 herein were legally mandated to upload the recruitment process on the SARAL Portal and there could not have been a private recruitment process.
(h) "SARAL" (Systematic Administrative Reforms for Achievement in Learning by Students) was also introduced by the Government vide Government Resolution dated 23-6-2017 and the vacant positions of teachers as well as the number of surplus teachers was to be uploaded on SARAL website, as per Clause 3.1 of the Government Resolution.
(i) The surplus teachers were to be absorbed whenever and wherever vacancies arose.
(j) The teachers' recruitment was permitted only through the Pavitra Portal, as per Clause 3.2 of the said Government Resolution.
(k) The said Government Resolution also prescribes at Clause 3.4 that besides the Pavitra Portal, the Management has to publish the advertisement in two 13 89(rr).WP.5201.21.odt (2) newspapers having maximum circulation in the region and out of the two, one has to be a Marathi Newspaper. So also, such recruitment process has to be intimated to the District Social Welfare Department and the Employment Exchange Department.
(l) Vide Clause 3.5, interested candidates had to apply pursuant to the advertisement along with the chart of their score acquired under T.E.T. (Teachers Eligibility Test).
(m) There are several other conditions introduced in the said Government Resolution which have mandatory effect and this has been done by the State Government pursuant to the order dated 24-6-2015 passed in the Public Interest Litigation.
(n) Even a single glance at the advertisement at issue, indicates that it had the nature of a walk in interview. Candidates were called upon to attend the interview between 10.00 to 4.00 p.m., on 18-9-2017. Besides this one statement, there are no other conditions set out in the advertisement, which is as vague as it could be.
(o) No record of the selection of the Petitioners (minutes of the selection committee), were placed before the Education Officer.
9. Considering the above, we find the entire recruitment exercise to be highly suspicious and an eye wash. It appears that the Management has instrumentalised the inward stamps of the Education Department on its three applications and by publishing an advertisement in a practically unknown newspaper, going against the mandate of the Government Resolution dated 23-6-2017, has appointed the petitioner on 19- 9-2017 for a period of only three (3) years. He was appointed on a consolidated package of 7,000/- per month as a 'Shikshan Sevak for a period of three (3) years. Moreover, the view taken by the Education Officer in the impugned order dated 6-8-2018 refusing to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner for a period of three (3) years as a "Shikshan Sevak' in the light of the advertisement being suspicious and no details of the selection process having been placed before the Education Officer, cannot be faulted."
18. So also this Court in the case of Prakash Daulat Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra ; 2024 (6) Bom. C.R. 186, having came across the 14 89(rr).WP.5201.21.odt illegalities committed by the Management in making appointment of the teacher found that if the appointment of teacher is found to be dehors the provisions of law, the Education Officer cannot be directed to grant approval and has thus directed that before appointing a teacher the recruitment under the Act of 1977 as well as the rules of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (the the Rules,1981) needs to be scrupulously followed. The observations of this Court in the case of Prakash Daulat Patil (supra) are reproduced herein below :
"8. Even if the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted that since at the time of appointment of the petitioner which was made on 1st June 2018, Pavitra Portal was not functioning, the management of the institution was still required to advertise the vacancy against which the petitioner claims his appointment, in at least one local newspaper having wide circulation in the region. The management was also required to notify the vacancy to the Employment Exchange Centre of the District and District Social Welfare Officer.
9. In respect of fulfillment of requirement under Rule 9(2A) of Rules of 1981, reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner on an advertisement, which is available at Exhibit- B, appended to the Writ Petition. The advertisement appears to have been published in a weekly newspaper, "Pakshapramukh", in its special edition published on 1 st May 2018. The document at Exhibit-B to the Writ Petition discloses that the said weekly newspaper was published from Jalgaon.
10. In respect of the said advertisement published in weekly newspaper "Pakshapramukh", we may observe that once the requirement under Rule 9(2A) of the Rules of 1981 is publication of advertisement in at least one local newspaper having wide circulation, in our opinion, the said requirement cannot be said to have been fulfilled by publishing the advertisement in a weekly newspaper. From a bare perusal of
15 89(rr).WP.5201.21.odt Exhibit-B appended to the Writ Petition, the circulation of the said weekly newspaper appears to be doubtful. As per the requirement under Rule 9(2A) of the Rules of 1981, the newspaper should have wide circulation. Accordingly, such advertisement, in our opinion, is not as per the mandatory requirement of Rule 9(2A) of the Rules of 1981.
11. Further, we may also note that another requirement for publication of advertisement regarding the vacancy is that it should be notified to the Employment Exchange Centre of the District and District Social Welfare Officer. There is nothing on record which establishes that the vacancy against which the petitioner claims his appointment was ever notified to the Employment Exchange Centre of the District or District Social Welfare Board.
12. Employment of assistant teachers in private schools in the State of Maharashtra are not only governed by a State Legislation i.e. the Act of 1977 and the Rules of 1981, but in aided schools burden of payment of salary of such teachers is also borne by the State exchequer. Accordingly, any such employment lies in the realm of the public employment and hence the recruitment / selection / appointment of such teachers in private aided schools has to be necessarily in conformity with the fundamental right enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Rule 9(2A) of the Rules of 1981 requires that the advertisement of vacancy shall not only be published in at least one local newspaper having wide circulation but also that the vacancy will have to be notified to the Employment Exchange Centre of the District and District Social Welfare Officer. The purpose is to provide equal opportunity to all eligible candidates to participate for appointment in public employment. If the vacancy against which the petitioner is said to have been appointed has not been widely advertised, that itself would be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, which is a fundamental right."
19. We thus find that once we have already concluded that the appointments of the petitioners are not in accordance with law rather suspicious, the other submission regarding applicability of Government Resolutions dated 23.06.2017 and 24.08.2018 need not be gone into and, 16 89(rr).WP.5201.21.odt therefore, we do not propose to delve on the said aspect, suffice it to say that the writ petition sans merit and the same deserves to be dismissed.
20. The writ petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (R.G. AVACHAT, J.) habeeb/