Bombay High Court
Ranchodsingh Ganpatsingh Chauhan vs The Commissioner, Tribal Development ... on 23 February, 2026
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
2026:BHC-NAG:3275-DB
1 WRIT ETITION-1788-2012(J).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1788 OF 2012
Ranchodsingh Ganpatsingh Chauhan.
Age-40, Occ: Nil,
R/o. Gondpura, Near Birhad Hotel, PETITIONER
Dabiki Road, Akola,
Tq. and District Akola.
...VERSUS...
1. The Commissioner, Tribal Development
Department, Maharashtra State, RESPONDENTS
Adiwasi Vikas Bhawan, Gadkari Chowk,
Near Ramabai Ambedkar Girls School,
Old Agra Road, Nashik,
Tq. and District Nashik.
2. The Project Officer,
Integrated Tribal Development Project,
Akola, Ravatwadi, Akola.
Tq. and District Akola.
3. Gayatri Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
through it's President, Kediya Plots,
Akola, Tq. and District Akola.
Respondent
4. Society of Asumption, Pune
nos. 4 and 5 Through its President/Secretary,
amended as R/o Tillori, Tq. Dindori, Dist. Nashik.
per Court's
order dated 5. Primary and Secondary Ashram School,
4/2/2013 Through its Head Master,
R/o Tillori, Tq. Dindori, Dist. Nashik.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P. P. Thakre, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. H. D. Marathe, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 WRIT ETITION-1788-2012(J).odt
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
DATE : 23/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : ANIL S. KILOR, J.):-
Leave is granted to amend the prayer clause. The amendment be carried out forthwith.
2. In the present petition, the petitioner challenges the denial of his absorption following the de-recognition of the Ashram School where he was working.
3. The brief facts of the present case are as under:
(i) Respondent No. 3-Management issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of 'Laboratory Attendant', along with other posts. The petitioner, being duly qualified and eligible, applied for the said post. Upon consideration of his candidature, he was duly selected and thereafter appointed to the said post.
(ii) It is the case of the petitioner that his appointment was made on a clear and permanent vacant post. Respondent No. 2 granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner for one academic session. A similar approval was granted in respect of other employees who were appointed pursuant to the advertisement issued in the months of June/July 1997. The approvals were granted to the post of petitioner on a year-to-year basis upto academic session 2002-03.
3 WRIT ETITION-1788-2012(J).odt
(iii) On 26.06.2003, the respondent no.1 de-recognized the Ashram School on the ground of poor academic performance of the School and mismanagement. The petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition seeking his absorption bearing Writ Petition No. 4803 of 2005. Vide order dated 13.10.2006, the said writ petition was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate application to the respondent - Commissioner Tribal Development Department, Maharashtra State. It was directed to the Commissioner, Tribal Development to consider the same on its own merit.
(iv) Accordingly the petitioner made a representation/ application on 20.10.2006, which came to be rejected on 16.01.2007. Against the said rejection, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2391 of 2008. This time also the petitioner was granted liberty to take recourse to the permissible remedy. Since under the Ashram School Code there is no appeal/revision provided against the order passed by the Commissioner, Tribal Development, the petitioner once-again approached the Commissioner Tribal Development Department seeking re-consideration of his request. However, the said request came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 28.01.2011. The only ground on which such rejection is based is that the petitioner was appointed as a temporary employee on a year-to-year basis and that he was not a confirmed employee.
4 WRIT ETITION-1788-2012(J).odt
4. Shri P. P. Thakre, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, argues that initial appointment of the petitioner was made vide order dated 28.06.1996 for one year i.e. 1.07.1996 to 13.05.1997. However, the petitioner's second appointment from 01.07.1997 was made on probation. The probation period was ended in the year 1999 and the petitioner was continued in service upto 2003 when the School was de-recognized. He submits that the respondent no.1 has committed grave error in not considering the petitioner as confirmed employee. He therefore submits that the impugned order needs to be quashed and set aside.
5. On the other hand, Shri Marathe, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, opposed the present writ petition on the ground that this Hon'ble Court, by order dated 09.02.2009, while disposing of Writ Petition No. 2391/2008, had granted liberty to the petitioner to raise his grievance by initiating appropriate proceedings as permissible in law. He further submits that since the said writ petition was filed against the order dated 16.01.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Tribal Development, whereby the petitioner's request for absorption was rejected on the ground that he was a temporary employee and not a confirmed one, and as the petitioner failed to initiate appropriate proceedings challenging the said order, the present writ petition is not maintainable in law.
5 WRIT ETITION-1788-2012(J).odt
6. We do not find favour with the argument advanced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader as he has not pointed out remedy, namely any appeal/revision against the order of the Commissioner, Tribal Development, which the petitioner could have availed pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 09.02.2009 to approach the appropriate authority by initiating appropriate proceedings. Since there is no appeal or revision provided under the Ashram School Code, the petitioner took a chance to approach the Commissioner once-again with similar prayer, which came to be rejected vide order impugned dated 28.01.2011.
7. Having considered the rival contentions and the facts of the present case, it is evident that the initial appointment of the petitioner was by order dated 28.06.1996 for a fixed period of one academic year i.e. 01.07.1996 to 13.05.1997. However, subsequent appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 01.07.1997 shows that the appointment was made on probation. The petitioner was thereafter continued upto the year 2003. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that the petitioner was confirmed in service after completion of the probation period. It is not the case of the respondents that there was no permanent post available or petitioner's appointment was not against a clear vacancy. On the contrary, the record indicates that the petitioner served continuously 6 WRIT ETITION-1788-2012(J).odt from the academic year 1996-1997 till 2002-03, i.e. for 7 years and his appointment was made against a permanent and clear vacancy.
8. It is further to be noted that the petitioner's appointment was approved by the respondent no.2. Though the petitioner's second appointment was made on probation, he was granted approval on a year- to-year basis. However, that does not change/alter the status of the petitioner a confirmed employee.
9. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that since the facts referred were not considered by the respondent no.1 and an incorrect finding was recorded that the petitioner's appointment was temporary and that he is not entitled for absorption, is unsustainable.
10. It is pointed out that other similarly situated employees working in the same Ashram School where the petitioner was employed, which was subsequently de-recognized, have been absorbed by Respondent No. 2.
11. In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the petition needs to be allowed. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The orders dated 16.01.2007 and 28.01.2011 passed
by the respondent no.1 are quashed and set aside.
7 WRIT ETITION-1788-2012(J).odt
(iii) We direct the respondent no.2 to enter/include the name of the petitioner in the list of surplus teachers of the Ashram School.
12. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
13. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of accordingly.
(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)
Andurkar..
Signed by: Jayant S. Andurkar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 25/02/2026 18:30:03