901. WP 7720.2022.doc Saurya Edu.Trust vs. Divn.Dy.Director IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7720 OF 2022 Surya Education Trust through its President and Anr. … Petitioners V/s. The Divisional Deputy Director of Education, Mumbai and Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 905 OF 2020 Pooja Sheetlaprasad Upadhyay … Petitioner V/s. The President, Surya Education Trust and Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________ Mr. Mayuresh Lagu a/w. Sagar Patil for the Petitioners in WP/7720/2022 Mr. Anand Kulkarni for Respondent no.2 Ms. Deepali Peherkar for Respondent no.6 Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, Addl.G.P. a/w. Mr. V.G. Badgujar, AGP for the Respondent in WP/7720/2022 Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, Addl.G.P. a/w. Ms. P.J. Gavhane, AGP for the Respondent in WP/905/2020 Ms. Ruksana Hakim, Law Officer present, District Director of Education, Mumbai _______________________________________ CORAM : R. I. CHAGLA AND FARHAN P. DUBASH, JJ. DATE : 02nd JULY 2026 P.C. : 1. The Petitioners and Respondent no.6 have entered into the Consent Terms ---------------------- Order dated 02nd July 2026 JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR Digitally signed by JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR Date: 2026.07.03 11:21:38 +0530 901. WP 7720.2022.doc Saurya Edu.Trust vs. Divn.Dy.Director bearing today’s date, which is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. 2. Appended to the Consent Terms is the letter of the Secretary of the Petitioner – Trust authorizing the signatory to the Consent Terms to execute the Consent Terms. 3. The Respondent – State is not a party to the Consent Terms and hence the said Consent Terms are not binding on the Respondent – State. 4. The Petitioners have filed Writ Petition No. 905 of 2020 against the Education Authorities for release of salary from October 2018 along with arrears thereof which, as per the Consent Terms the Petitioners will pursue. 5. The parties to the Consent Terms have in Clause 13 agreed that the impugned order dated 30th August 2021 passed by the President, Dispute Resolution Committee, Divisional Deputy Director, Mumbai in matter No.P-8/2021 shall stand cancelled qua the Petitioner – Management is concerned and Respondent no.6 will pursue the said claim only against the Respondent – Education Authorities. 6. The Petitioners have agreed and undertaken to submit an appropriate proposal to the Respondent – Education Authorities for approval of appointment of Respondent no.6 on the 100% grant-in-aid posts i.e. with effect from 1st December 2025 along with all necessary documents, within a ---------------------- Order dated 02nd July 2026 901. WP 7720.2022.doc Saurya Edu.Trust vs. Divn.Dy.Director period of two weeks from the date of execution of these Consent Terms. In clause 10 of the Consent Terms, it is provided that the Respondent – Education Authorities shall consider the proposal submitted by the Petitioners for approval of Respondent no.6 on the 100% grant-in-aid posts, in accordance with law and shall take appropriate decision within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such proposal. 7. The learned AGP appearing for the Respondent – Education Authorities though stating that the Consent Terms are not binding on the Respondent – Education Authorities, on instructions states that the Education Authorities will consider the aforementioned proposal submitted by the Petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such proposal. The statement is accepted. 8. In view of these Consent Terms arrived at between the Petitioner and Respondent no.6, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms thereof. ( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. ) ( R. I. CHAGLA J. ) Jyoti Pawar ---------------------- Order dated 02nd July 2026