Bombay High Court
Dilip Murlidhar Chaudhary vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 12 January, 2026
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2026:BHC-AUG:1556-DB
14658-25-WP.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.14658 OF 2025
Dilip Murlidhar Chaudhary,
Age:- 47 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. At Post Faizpur, Tq. Yawal,
Dist. Jalgaon. ... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
School Education and Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai -32
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 12.
3. Commissioner of Education,
State of Maharashtra, Pune.
4. Director of Education,
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education,
Pune, Maharashtra.
5. Deputy Director of Education,
Nashik Region, Nashik.
6. Education Officer,
Education Department, Zilla Parishad,
Jalgaon.
7. Chief Officer,
Municipal Council,
Faizpur, Tq. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon.
8. Head Master,
Municipal High School and Junior
College, Faizpur, Tq. Yawal,
Dist Jalgaon.
14658-25-WP.odt
{2}
......
Mr. N.R. Thorat, Advocate h/f Mr. B.A. Chavan, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. R.S. Wani, AGP for Respondents Nos.
......
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
DATED : 12 JANUARY, 2026
ORDER [Per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.] :-
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeks to quash and set aside the order dated 08.08.2023 passed by
respondent No. 5 and to direct the said respondent to consider the
proposal submitted by the petitioner afresh.
2. The petitioner states that the petitioner's father was employed as
'Naik' in Municipal High School and Junior College at Faizpur, Tq.
Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon, which was run and managed by Faizpur Municipal
Council. The petitioner's father expired two years before his retirement,
and the petitioner was appointed as ' Shipai' on 01.07.1988 by way of
resolution passed by the Standing Committee on compassionate ground.
Respondent No.6, on 01.03.1990 granted approval to the appointment
of the petitioner and since then the petitioner has been working
regularly. On 30.04.2007, one employee working as a Laboratory
Attendant retired on superannuation, and since then the post fell
14658-25-WP.odt
{3}
vacant. Consequently, the Principal of the School orally requested the
petitioner to discharge the duties of Laboratory Attendant in the
Secondary Department. Accordingly, though the petitioner was working
as a 'Shipai', he started attending to the duties of Laboratory Attendant
with effect from 01.05.2007. On 24.08.2015, the resolution was passed
unanimously by Shaley Samiti Sabha promoting the petitioner as
Laboratory Attendant in the Secondary Department with retrospective
effect from 01.07.2015. The proposal for the appointment of the
petitioner on promotion was forwarded by respondent No.8 with
retrospective effect from 01.07.2015 to respondent No.6 on 09.09.2015.
As the proposal was kept pending, reminder letter was issued on
18.04.2016, but the same continued to remain pending on the file of
respondent No.6. The petitioner states that on 11.12.2020, the
Government Resolution came to be issued and the post of Laboratory
Attendant was lapsed as per the said G.R. The petitioner further states
that another employee who was working as Laboratory Assistant retired
on 30.11.2013 in the Higher Secondary Department of the School, and
therefore, the petitioner was again promoted as Laboratory Assistant
with retrospective effect from 01.12.2013 subject to the approval of the
Eduction Officer on the pay scale and other allowances as per the
government rules. The school committee passed a resolution dated
18.12.2021 to that effect. On 01.12.2022, the proposal for the
14658-25-WP.odt
{4}
post of Laboratory Assistant was submitted to the Education Officer for
approval along with all the necessary documents attached thereto.
Again, the said proposal was kept pending, and therefore, several
reminder were letters written by the Principal to respondent No.5. The
petitioner submits that on 28.04.2022, respondent No.5 scrutinized the
proposal dated 01.01.2022 and rejected the said proposal on the
ground of ten deficiencies mentioned therein. The order of rejection
mentioned that the proposal did not annex a certificate of non-surplus
posts, resolution of the organization, reason for submitting the proposal
after a delay of ten years, list of Board of Directors, seniority list,
non-teaching staff, copy of promotional reservation etc. On 01.10.2022,
the Principal of the school complied with the deficiencies and
resubmitted the proposal of the petitioner for approval along with all
the necessary documents. Resubmitted proposal disclosed reasons as to
why the proposal was submitted belatedly after ten years. The reason
mentioned therein, according to the petitioner, was that the petitioner
was working on the vacant post since the date of retirement of the
employee in whose post the petitioner was appointed since 30.11.2013.
It was also mentioned that the proposal for the appointment of the
petitioner on the post of Laboratory Attendant in the Secondary
Department was also submitted to the Education Officer, Jalgaon for
approval, but the said proposal was still pending and has not been
14658-25-WP.odt
{5}
decided. However, due to the Government Resolution dated
11.12.2020, as the post of Laboratory Attendant was lapsed, the
petitioner's appointment as Laboratory Assistant was cancelled, and he
was therefore promoted as Laboratory Assistant with retrospective
effect as he had already been working on vacant post since 2013. The
petitioner further submits that on 23.03.2023, a letter was issued by
respondent No.5 to respondent No.8 asking for documents of certificate
regarding non-excess of employees, clarification for delay of ten years in
promoting the petitioner with retrospective effect from 2013, valid
certified copy of Board of Directors approved by the Charity
Commissioner, certified copy of Bindunamavali before promotion
approved and verified by Sanchmanyata from the year of deputation till
2021-2022. The petitioner submits that respondent No.8 on
06.04.2023, submitted all the necessary documents and clarification as
sought by respondent No.4. The petitioner further submits that though
all the documents and clarification was submitted by respondent No.8
to respondent No.5, yet the proposal of the petitioner was rejected by
an order dated 08.08.2023.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner argued that the
order dated 08.08.2023 passed by respondent No.5 rejecting the
proposal of the petitioner for approval is contrary to the provisions of
14658-25-WP.odt
{6}
law as the petitioner has already been working on the post of
Laboratory Assistant since 01.12.2013 on the vacant post. He further
argued that respondent No.5 has not applied its mind to the fact that
the petitioner has been working as Laboratory Assistant on promotion.
He further argued that detailed clarification and explanation have been
provided by respondent No.8 along with petitioner's proposal for the
delay of ten years in submitting of the proposal with respondent No.5.
He thus argued that the order dated 08.08.2013 deserves to be set
aside, and the petitioner's proposal is required to be reconsidered afresh
by respondent No.5.
4. Learned AGP argued that the order passed by respondent No.5
rejecting the proposal of the petitioner is well reasoned and is passed
after giving due consideration to the facts and documents placed on
record. He submitted that there is no procedure to grant promotion to
an employee with retrospective effect and then submitted a proposal for
granting approval backdated. The proposal therefore was found to be
devoid of any merit as the same was contrary to the provisions of law.
Furthermore, the explanation provided for submitting the proposal of
the petitioner for approval is after a period of ten years without there
being any satisfactory explanation for the delay caused in submitting of
the said proposal. He accordingly prayed that the petition be dismissed.
14658-25-WP.odt
{7}
5. We have perused the order impugned in the present petition and
have also perused the documents placed on record by the present
petitioner. The petitioner who was appointed as " Shipai" has been
promoted from time to time by the respondent-Management on the
basis of resolution passed by the Standing Committee and Shaley Samiti
Sabha, which according to us does not fit into any of the procedures
established while granting promotions to the employees. There is no
mention of consideration of the seniority list of the employees of the
said institution, and also there is a lack of consideration and mention of
the roster being followed while granting promotion. It is also not
possible to accept the explanation given by the petitioner for seeking
approval for his appointment as Laboratory Assistant submitted in the
year 2022 with effect from 01.01.2013. The petitioner in spite of our
query, has failed to support his claim of retrospective approval for more
than ten years with any provision of law and rules regulating the subject
of granting approval to the appointments and/or promotional
appointments of the employees. We therefore do not find any reason to
interfere with the decision of respondent No.5 dated 08.08.2023 passed
while rejecting the proposal of granting approval to the petitioner's
appointment as Laboratory Assistant with retrospective effect from
01.12.2013. We accordingly proceed to pass the following order:
14658-25-WP.odt
{8}
ORDER
(i) The writ petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
S P Rane