916-16167-2023-CWP=.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 16167 OF 2023 Smt. Anjana Kumar Ambi and Ors. … Petitioners Versus The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary and Ors. … Respondents …………. Mr. Prathamesh P. Magadum a/w Mr. Chetan G. Patil i/b Mr. Mandar C. Bagkar for the Petitioners. Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent - State. …………. CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR & PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 8th APRIL, 2026. ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Pravin S. Patil, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Mali, learned A.G.P. for the Respondent – State. 2. In this petition, the Petitioner No.1 has approached before this Court against the order of the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli, who has refused to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner against the post of Peon, vide its order dated 24th June 2022. Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 6 UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Digitally signed by UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Date: 2026.04.09 20:40:23 +0530 916-16167-2023-CWP=.doc 3. In the present petition, it is undisputed fact that Petitioner No.2 is a Minority Institute and runs Petitioner No.3 - School. As per the settled principles of law, the Minority Institutes are exempted from absorption of Teacher from non-Minority School and consequently the permission from the Education Officer as required under Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 is not required in the matter. 4. As a consequence, Petitioner No.2 Management issued an Advertisement for the vacant post to be filled in as per their choice. Accordingly by following due procedure of law, the Petitioner was appointed in the School against the post of ‘Peon’. 5. After the appointment of the Petitioner No.1 against the post of Peon on 1st August 2017, the Petitioner No.3 has forwarded the proposal to the Respondent – Education Officer for grant of approval on 4th May 2022. In turn, Respondent – Education Officer by relying upon the Government Resolution dated 11th December 2020 rejected the proposal by recording the reason that the post of non-teaching staff, particularly Peon is now lapsed and, therefore, approval cannot be granted. Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 6 916-16167-2023-CWP=.doc 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner made a submission before this Court that the Government Resolution dated 11th December 2020 is not applicable in the matter because appointment of Petitioner No.1 is of dated 1st August 2017. As per settled position of law, unless it is expressly mention, the Resolution cannot be made applicable retrospectively in the matter. 7. Learned AGP strongly opposed the petition. According to him, merely because the Petitioner – Institute is Minority Institute it cannot be held that Policy framed by the State Government by Government Resolution dated 11th December 2020 is not applicable in the matter. But at the same time do not disputed the law laid down in case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka1 and in the case of Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College Vs. T. Jose & Ors.2. 8. In light of submission made by both the parties, it would be relevant to refer the judgment of the co-ordinate bench in the case of Jospin Maykal Dsouza Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.3 wherein considering the settled position of law observed in paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 as under :- 1 2002 (8) SCC 481 2 2007 (1) SCC 386 3 W.P. No. 8710 of 2024 Uday S. Jagtap 3 of 6 916-16167-2023-CWP=.doc “10. The Education Officer then in the impugned order makes a reference to the G.R.'s dated 28th January 2019 and 11th December 2020 to show that the appointment of the Petitioner is contrary to the conditions mentioned in the said G.R.'s. It is significant to note that the Petitioner was appointed in the year 2017, when the G.R.'s of 28th January 2019 and 11th December 2020 were not in force. The aforesaid G.R.'s in our opinion cannot have retrospective applicability. 11. We are supported in our view by the decision of this Court in the case of Dilip Mohan Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2021 (3) Mah.L.J. 759. In the said decision authored by His Lordship (Shri Madhav J. Jamdar, J.) in para Nos. 16 to 18 has observed thus: "16. Mr. Thorat has also relied on G.R. dated 28th January, 2019. In fact, the said G.R. states that all the decisions of the State of Maharashtra regarding staffing pattern taken earlier are cancelled and the staffing pattern is to be implemented as set out in the said G.R. In so far as staffing pattern of class-IV employees are concerned, it is specifically mentioned that new separate G.R. will be issued. In the affidavit in reply it is specifically stated that Government has not decided the staffing pattern, recruitment pattern about the post of peon. Be that as it may, all these Government Resolutions which are subsequent to the appointment of Petitioner will not apply to the Petitioner's case and therefore, it can not be said that approval granted to his appointment as peon by orders dated 21st January, 2019 and 25th February, 2019 issued by Respondent No.2-Education Officer (Secondary) are illegal. 17. Mr. Patil rightly relied on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Suman Shriram Kakad (supra). In the said case also the question was whether the Government Resolution dated 5th August, 2010 would apply with retrospective effect. This Court has held Uday S. Jagtap 4 of 6 916-16167-2023-CWP=.doc that it is a cardinal principle of construction of statute that every statue is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation. It is further held that unless there are words in the statute sufficient to show the intention of the legislature to affect existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective. As a logical corollary of general rule, retrospective operation is not taken to be in-tended unless that intention was manifested by express words or necessary implication. Another principle flowing from presumption against retrospectivity is that one does not expect rights conferred by the statute to be destroyed by events which took place before it was passed. 18. In the present case, not only that the Government Resolutions on which Mr. Thorat has heavily relied are subsequent to the appointment of Petitioner but, in fact, the said Government Resolutions clearly contemplates/specifies that either they are applicable from the date of Government Resolution or the date specifically mentioned therein." 9. In the present case, admittedly only because of the Government Resolution dated 11th December 2020, the proposal of the Petitioner has been rejected. In our considered opinion, the case of the Petitioner is covered by the judgment of this Court dated 19th November 2025 passed in Writ Petition No.8710 of 2024 in case of Jospin Maykal Dsouza (supra). 10. Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 24th June 2022 passed by Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli is hereby quashed Uday S. Jagtap 5 of 6 916-16167-2023-CWP=.doc and set aside. The Education Officer is hereby directed to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner No.1 as per the proposal dated 4th May 2022 with all consequential benefits within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of this order. 11. It is further made clear that after granting approval to the appointment of the Petitioner, the Education Officer should take necessary steps to forward the proposal of the Petitioner to the Deputy Director of Education to include the name of the Petitioner in the Shalarth Pranali. The Deputy Director of Education then include the name of the Petitioner in the Shalarth Pranali and provide Shalarth I.D. within the stipulated period as laid down under the Government Resolution dated 10th June 2022. 12. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms of above direction. No order as to costs. [PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. ] [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] Uday S. Jagtap 6 of 6