18-WP-4991-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4991 OF 2023 Jayashri Vasant Bane ...Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra Thr. The Secretary And Ors ...Respondents —————— Mr. Prashant Bhavake a/w Adv. Durva Jadhav, for the Petitioner. Ms. Tejas Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Utkarsh Desai, for the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7. —————— Coram : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH & NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. Date : SEPTEMBER 03, 2026 P. C. : 1. By this Petition, the challenge is to the order dated 31st August, 2019, passed by Respondent No. 5-Education Officer. By the impugned order, the Education Officer granted approval for the Petitioner’s transfer from unaided post to aided post on a consolidated pay scale for the post of Shikshan Sevak, even though Petitioner had completed probation period and had acquired deemed permanency. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 20th June, 2013, the Petitioner was appointed on unaided post of Shikshan Sevak, and her appointment was approved by the Education Officer on 12th June, 2014. Arya Chavan 1 of 5 2026:BHC-KOL:8475-DB 18-WP-4991-2023.doc As there was a transfer of the Petitioner from unaided post to aided post on 15th June, 2018 by the management, proposal was submitted to the Education Officer seeking approval. The Education Officer passed the impugned order granting approval on consolidated pay scale for the post of Shikshan Sevak, relying on the Government Circular dated 28th June, 2016. 3. Mr. Bhavake, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the issue has been settled by various decisions of this Court, and in particular, by the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sandip s/o Dilip Thorat vs The State of Maharashtra And Others1 in Writ Petition No. 168 of 2021 and connected Petitions. He submits that the Hon’ble Division Bench considered the clauses of the Government Circular dated 28th June, 2016 and has held that Sub-Clause 5(A) of Clause 3 of Government Circular can be invoked only where the Assistant Teacher has not completed three years period after his appointment in the school on unaided basis and that he has not received approval to his service as an Assistant Teacher on regular basis. He would point out that in the present case, the Petitioner has completed five years of service short of five days, and therefore, approval was required to be granted for the post of Assistant Teacher in regular pay scale. 1 WP No. 168 of 2021 decided on 22/07/2021 by Bombay High Court Arya Chavan 2 of 5 18-WP-4991-2023.doc 4. Per contra, learned AGP would submit that the Petitioner had filed an undertaking with the Education Officer admitting that she has not completed a period of five years, and that she is agreeable to the approval being granted as Shikshan Sevak on consolidated pay for a period of three years. She would submit that in the decision of Sandip s/o Dilip Thorat vs The State of Maharashtra And Others (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench held that approval can be granted as assistant teacher, and not Shikshan Sevak, only upon the completion of five year period on unaided post. 5. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. 6. The decision in the case of Sandip s/o Dilip Thorat vs The State of Maharashtra And Others (supra) covers the present issue. In that case, the Hon’ble Division Bench had the occasion to consider various clauses of the Government Circular dated 28th June, 2016. It noted the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, as well as the judicial pronouncements on the subject. It also noted the decision in the case of Sagar s/o Harichandra Bhande And Another vs The State of Maharashtra And Others2, where it was held that when an Assistant Teacher has already completed three years period, there is no justifiable reason to ask the Assistant Teacher to work again as Shikshan Sevak on consolidated pay for three years. It 2 WP(St) No. 93916 of 2020 decided on 12/03/2021 by Bombay High Court Arya Chavan 3 of 5 18-WP-4991-2023.doc held in paragraph 19 as under : “19. It is clear from these Petitions that the respective Petitioners had rendered service on unaided basis as Assistant Teacher in the respective Secondary Schools and were transferred to the aided division of the respective Secondary Schools on the basic sanctioned post which had become vacant on the said aided division and the said post was already on 100% grant-in-aid basis. It has been clearly held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sagar S/0. Harichandra Bhande & Anr. (supra), where the Assistant Teacher had already completed three years period, there is no justifiable reason to ask the Assistant Teacher to work again as Shikshan Sevak on consolidated pay for three years. Sub-Clause 5(A) of Clause 3 of the said Government Circular can be invoked only where the Assistant teacher has not completed three years period after his appointment in the school on unaided basis and that he has not received approval to his services as an Assistant Teacher on regular basis.” 7. In the present case, it is undisputed that the Petitioner has completed three years probation period as Shikshan Sevak. The Petitioner satisfies the criteria for being granted approval as Assistant Teacher on regular pay scale. Applying the settled position in law to the present case, the impugned order is clearly unsustainable. Though, it is sought to be contended by learned AGP that the requirement is of five years, the issue has now been settled by the judicial decisions of this Court. As the Petitioner has completed probation period of three years, upon her transfer to an aided post, she is entitled to approval as an Assistant Teacher in the regular pay scale. 8. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 31st August, 2019, is quashed and set aside. The Education Officer is directed to grant approval for the transfer of the Petitioner from the unaided post to the aided post in the regular pay scale as an Assistant Teacher within a Arya Chavan 4 of 5 18-WP-4991-2023.doc period of two weeks from today. The arrears of salary to be released within a period of four weeks thereafter. The Petition is allowed. 9. Applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.] Arya Chavan 5 of 5