11333.18wp (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 76 WRIT PETITION NO. 11333 OF 2018 JASWANTSING KARANSINH BAYAS AND ORS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10181 OF 2022 IN WP/11333/2018 PRABHAKAR SHARNAPPA BEDGE VERSUS JASWANTSING KARNSINH BAYAS AND OTHERS ….. Mr N. R. Thorat, Advocate for Petitioners Mr K. B. Jadhavar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State Mr V. D. Gunale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 & 5 Mr Arpit S. Tarale, Advocate h/f Mr C. K. Shinde, Advocate for Applicant (Intervenor) ….. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ. DATE : 08th APRIL 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner, learned AGP and learned Advocate for respective respondents. 2. The petitioner has prayed for direction to respondents to consider the applications of the petitioner dated 23/01/2017 and 2026:BHC-AUG:15315-DB 11333.18wp (2) 30/05/2017. The petitioners’ claim is for arrears of salary and approval to the post of teachers with respondent No.4/School. It is contended in the petition that the petitioners have joined in the respondent No.4/School on getting appointment orders in 2009 and worked till 2018, however, no salary has been paid to them. It is submitted that the proposal was submitted for approval to their appointments, however, said was refused by the Deputy Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur. It is stated in the refusal order that there are no documents of approved staffing pattern, availability of workload to appoint the petitioners and no roaster is approved by the authorities. Thus, it is the case of the petitioners that since they have worked, they have not been paid salary and not granted approval. 3. Upon hearing the respective parties, it is seen that the appointments of the petitioners were not made by due process of law. There was no permission obtained prior for issuance of advertisement calling for applications. Thus, the appointments of the petitioners are not by following due procedure of law, and therefore, no question of getting any right to the petitioners arises. 4. The Headmaster of the respondent No.4/School has filed intervention application. It is case of the said Headmaster that he has 11333.18wp (3) never signed the appointment orders. Even in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the learned AGP, it is made clear that the petitioners were appointed without following due procedure of law. The proposal was rightly refused by the Deputy Director of Education on the ground that the appointments were not as per the provisions of law. 5. Considering the above, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out by the petitioners to call for interference of this Court. This petition, therefore, stands dismissed. 6. Civil application No.10181/2022 for intervention is also allowed and stands disposed of. Petitioner to carry out necessary amendment by showing the name of the applicant in this civil application as party respondent in writ petition. [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.] sjk