25-WP-16464-2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 16464 OF 2024 Smita Kamalesh Bapat ...Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Ors ...Respondents —————— Ms. Surekha Kamble i/b Mr. Arvind Ambetkar, for the Petitioner. Mr. R.P.Kadam, “B” Panel counsel, for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH & NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. Date : SEPTEMBER 10, 2026 P. C. : 1. By the present Petition, the challenge is to the order dated 31st May, 2024 passed by the Education Officer granting approval to the appointment of the Petitioner on the post of Shikshan Sevak on honorarium by applying Clause 8 of the Government Resolution (“GR”) dated 10th June, 2005. 2. The facts as stated in the Petition are that the Petitioner was appointed as a junior clerk in the Respondent No. 5 school with effect from 17th December, 2007. The Petitioner successfully completed the probation period of two years, and subsequently, also acquired Arya Chavan 1 of 5 2026:BHC-KOL:8781-DB 25-WP-16464-2024.doc educational qualification of Bachelor of Arts, and thereafter, Bachelor of Education from Shreemati Nathibai Damodar Thackersey University, Mumbai in April/May 2011, which qualified her for being appointed as trained graduate teacher under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. In the year 2015, the Petitioner also passed the State Teachers Eligibility Test and became qualified for the post of assitant teacher for the classes 6 to 8 standards. Due to retirement of assistant teacher in the year 2023, the Petitioner came to be appointed on 6th October, 2023 by upgradation on the said vacant post, and in light of the provisions of GR dated 10th June, 2005, on monthly honorarium of Rs. 16,000/-. Upon application submitted for seeking approval, instead of granting a approval as assistant teacher, approval was granted as Shikshan Sevak from 6th October, 2023 as per Clause 8 of the GR dated 10th June, 2005. Hence, the present Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has taken this Court through the material on record in order to demonstrate the upgradation of the Petitioner to the post of assistant teacher on 6th October 2023. She would further point out Clause 8 of the GR dated 10th June, 2005 and also the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Suhas S/o Rangraoji More vs State of Maharashtra and Others1, 1 WP No. 7706 of 2022 decided on 21/12/2023 by Nagpur High Court Arya Chavan 2 of 5 25-WP-16464-2024.doc to contend that Clause 8 of the GR dated 10th June, 2005 was held to be arbitrary and discriminatory. She would submit that in view thereof, the Petitioner is entitled to approval on the post of assistant teacher with the applicable pay scale. 4. Per contra, learned AGP would support the impugned order and would contend that the initial appointment is required to be on the post of Shikshan Sevak, and it is only after the period of three years, that the approval can be granted to the post of assistant teacher. He relies upon the GR dated 10th June, 2005. 5. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. 6. The facts are mostly undisputed as regards the appointment of the Petitioner and her qualifications to be appointed as an assistant teacher. It is by reason of the post of assistant teacher becoming vacant in the year 2023, that the Petitioner came to be upgraded from a non- teaching post to teaching post, as directed by GR dated 10th June, 2005. The impediment is that the approval has been granted as Shikshan Sevak by reason of which the Petitioner will be paid honorarium instead of regular pay scale. The approval by the Education Officer was in view of Clause 8 of the GR dated 10th June, 2005. The said Clause 8 of the GR dated 10th June, 2005 was under consideration of this Court in the case of Shri Suhas S/o Rangraoji More vs State of Maharashtra and Others (supra). The Hon'ble Division Bench noted in that case that the Arya Chavan 3 of 5 25-WP-16464-2024.doc Petitioner had acquired the requisite qualifications to be appointed as full-time training teacher and the question which was considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench is whether the promotion should be as Shikshan Sevak on honorarium. Noting Clause 8 of the GR dated 10th June, 2005, the Hon'ble Division Bench held Clause 8 of GR of 2005, which stipulates promotion of non-teaching staff as Shikshan Sevak on payment of honorarium arbitrary and discriminatory on the principle of equal pay equal work and directed the appointment as assistant teacher of the Petitioner therein with prescribed pay scale at par with pay scale of other similarly placed promotees. It is not demonstrated that the said order was challenged by the State Government and has therefore attained finality. 7. We are respectfully bound by the said decision. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Suhas S/o Rangraoji More vs State of Maharashtra and Others (supra), the impugned order based on Clause 8 of the GR dated 10th June, 2005 is clearly unsustainable and is quashed and set aside. The Education Officer is directed to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner to the post of assistant teacher with effect from 6th October, 2023 with prescribed pay scale as applicable to the other similarly placed assistant teachers within a period of three weeks from today. The Petition is allowed in the above terms. Arya Chavan 4 of 5 25-WP-16464-2024.doc 8. 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