Bombay High Court
Ganesh Rambhau Khirade vs Deputy Director Of Education, Amravati ... on 11 March, 2026
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: M.S. Jawalkar
2026:BHC-NAG:4280-DB
WP5591.18.odt 1/9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5591/2018
1) Ganesh Rambhau Khirade.
Aged 23 Years, R/o. Dongaon,
Tahsil Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana
Occ - Service ... PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1) Deputy Director of Education,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
2) Education Officer, (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad Buldhana.
3) Shri. Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha
Through its Secretary, Office at
Dongaon Tq. Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana.
4) Shri. Shivaji High School and Jr.
College Dongaon, Tq. Mehkar, Dist.
Buldhana Through its Headmaster ...RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. N. R. Saboo, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. M. S. Naik, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr. V. G. Lohiya, counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 11th MARCH, 2026.
Shubham
WP5591.18.odt 2/9
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present petition challenges the order dated 29.06.2018 passed by respondent No. 1 - the Deputy Director of Education, Amravati Division, Amravati.
3 The facts which are discernible from the petition are as under :-
(a) The respondent No. 2 granted permission to respondent Nos.
3 and 4 to appoint employees, particularly, non-teaching employees.
(b) Pursuant thereto, on 11.07.2012, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 published a public notice in a daily newspaper and invited applications for appointment to the posts of Laboratory Assistant and Peon.
Shubham WP5591.18.odt 3/9
(c) On 23.07.2012, the respondent management held interviews for several candidates, including the petitioner.
(d) Thereafter, on 01.08.2012, an appointment letter was issued to the petitioner for the post of Laboratory Assistant, and he accordingly joined and is working with respondent No. 4 school.
(e) On 24.09.2012, respondent No. 3 submitted a proposal for approval of the services of the petitioner to respondent No. 2 Education Officer.
(f) However, the same was denied by respondent No. 2 by placing reliance on the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2012 stating that there was a ban on recruitment.
(g) This prompted the petitioner to approach this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 6056/2012.
Shubham WP5591.18.odt 4/9
(h) On 28.02.2013, the Division Bench of this Court, after recording the statement of the Education Officer on affidavit, issued a direction to reconsider the entitlement of the petitioner for grant of approval.
(i) On 25.03.2013, the respondent-Education Officer accordingly considered the claim of the petitioner for grant of approval and granted him approval as Laboratory Assistant Sevak.
(j) Subsequently, on 29.06.2018, after a lapse of about 6 years, the impugned order was issued by the Deputy Director of Education rejecting the approval granted to the petitioner earlier.
(k) This action is challenged in the present writ petition.
4. We have heard Mr. N. R. Saboo, learned counsel for the petitioner, as also Ms. M. S. Naik, learned AGP, for the respondent/State, and Mr. V. G. Lohiya, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
Shubham WP5591.18.odt 5/9
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order impugned, passed by the Deputy Director of Education, is dehors the provisions of law, as there is no power of review in the Deputy Director of Education, albeit even on the directions of the Commissioner of Schools. By taking us through the impugned order, he submits that there are only three grounds on which the impugned order was passed. The first is regarding the applicability of the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2012. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this does not run counter to the earlier order passed by this Court in the writ petition referred to supra.
6. Mr. N. R. Saboo, learned counsel for the petitioner, further contends that the second ground, regarding the advertisement being ineligible or unreadable, is also fallacious since, after considering the position, the approval was granted earlier. As far as the next ground is concerned, regarding the applicability of Rule 9(8) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981(for short, "the MEPS Rules"), it is the submission of the Shubham WP5591.18.odt 6/9 learned counsel for the petitioner that the rule came into effect on 22.06.2017 and cannot, by any stretch of imagination, have retrospective effect. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that all the three grounds collectively stand erroneous and cannot be legally sustainable.
7. Per contra, Ms. M. S. Naik, learned AGP, by taking us through the reply filed by the Deputy Director of Education, supports the impugned order. She submits that there was a ban on recruitment under Government Resolution 02.05.2012 and, therefore, the Commissioner of Education had directed the Deputy Director of Education to verify all such proposals and take action as per the statutory rules provided therein. She further submits that, admittedly, all the concerned parties were heard and, thereafter, by taking into consideration all aspects of the matter, the impugned order was passed. She, therefore, supports the impugned order.
8. Having considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties, and having gone through the record of the matter with their assistance, it is evident from the Shubham WP5591.18.odt 7/9 record that the petitioner was appointed by following due process of law and that he had been granted approval earlier, which is not in dispute. Albeit even if the approval was granted pursuant to the direction of this Court, the fact remains that the approval was granted, and therefore, in our view, the exercise of the Deputy Director of Education in reviewing the order earlier passed is totally uncalled for and dehors the provisions of any statutory provision or rule in that regard.
9. Thus, the first reason, regarding the reliance placed by the Deputy Director of Education on Government Resolution dated 02.05.2012, is totally unwarranted, since it has already been decided in the earlier round of litigation and has been acted upon by the Division Bench of this Court. The second ground, regarding the fact that the advertisement is not eligible, is totally fallacious, since the Deputy Director of Education, apart from adopting a hyper-technical approach, has gone into unnecessary details, which, in our view, is not sustainable.
Shubham WP5591.18.odt 8/9
10. The third ground is also fallacious inasmuch as, from the facts and the record, the reliance placed on Rule 9(8) of the MEPS Rules was totally unfounded, since the said rule came into effect on 22.06.2017 and is clearly not applicable in the case of the petitioner, whose rights had crystallized much before the rule was enacted. All three reasons, which form the basis of passing the impugned order, are unquestionable.
11. As far as the issue regarding the roster is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the petitioner has been appointed to a post reserved for the S.C. category. Thus, the said reason is also contrary to the record and cannot advance the case of the respondents further.
12. In that view of the matter, the petition is liable to be allowed, inasmuch as the order impugned is perverse, ignoring the settled position of law in that regard. Hence, the following order is passed :-
Shubham WP5591.18.odt 9/9 ORDER
(i) The order dated 29.06.2018, passed by respondent No. 1 -
the Deputy Director of Education, Amravati Division, Amravati, is quashed and set aside.
(ii) It is further directed that the respondent shall continue to recognize and maintain the approval of the appointment to the post of Laboratory Assistant.
(iii) The management, respondent Nos. 3 and 4, are directed to submit the proposal for pay bills to Respondent No. 2 within four weeks from the date of this order.
13. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, and the writ petition is disposed of.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) Shubham