wp 10874-22.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10874 OF 2022 Suhas Hauserao Patil. ...Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others. ...Respondents. —————— Mr. Mandar Bagkar (through V.C.) and Bhushan Jadhav for the Petitioner. Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : M. S. Karnik & Sharmila U. Deshmukh, JJ. Date : October 10, 2025. Order (Per Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.) : 1. The present petition impugns the communication dated 10th March 2022 issued by the Respondent No.2 rejecting the proposal submitted by the management seeking approval to the upgradation of Petitioner from clock hour basis post to full-time post. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the Petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in the Respondent No.4 school with efect from 15th June 2015 for the subject of History on clock hour basis. On 10th August 2020, by reason of retirement of one teacher from the Political Science subject, the post became vacant. In the meeting held on 7th August 2020, the Respondent No.3-management resolved to upgrade the Petitioner as a full-time Assistant Teacher with Patil-SR (ch) 1 of 5 wp 10874-22.doc efect from 17th August 2020 in terms of Government Resolution dated 10th June 2005. On 14th December 2021, the Respondent No.4- management submitted a proposal to the Respondent No.2 seeking approval to the Petitioner’s appointment, which came to be rejected by the impugned order. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent No.2 has erroneously relied on Government Resolutions dated 23rd June 2017, 20th June 2018 and 7th February 2019, which were applicable for fresh appointments and not to up-gradation as in the case of Petitioner. He would submit that as per Government Resolutions dated 31st January 2001 and 10th June 2005, a teacher working on part-time / clock hour basis post is required to be absorbed as full-time teacher when the vacancy of full-time teacher is available as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sadanand Krishnarao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition No. 10516 of 2018 decided on 9th July 2021]. He would submit that the Respondent No.2 failed to consider that Petitioner’s appointment was in the year 2015 for which the requirement of TEAT certiicate was not applicable. He would submit that the Petitioner’s appointment is for History subject in respect of which Respondent No.4 had submitted statement. He would submit that the Respondent No. 2 has factually erred as the roster was duly submitted and in any event if there was Patil-SR (ch) 2 of 5 wp 10874-22.doc any deiciency in the documents, Respondent No. 2 could have directed the submission of documents instead of rejecting the proposal. 4. Learned AGP would fairly concede that as per the decision of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Sadanand Krishnarao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra (supra) in case of vacancy of full-time teacher, the teacher working on part-time post is required to be absorbed. He would further submit that requirement of TEAT certiicate will not apply in the present case as the Petitioner is upgraded from the part- time post to full-time Assistant Teacher’s post. 5. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. 6. The impugned order dated 10th March 2022 rejects the proposal for up-gradation of Petitioner from part-time teacher to full-time teacher on the grounds that Petitioner’s appointment has not been made through Pavitra Portal, that the TEAT certiicate has not been submitted by the Petitioner, that the Petitioner’s appointment was for History subject which post is not available as per staing pattern, whereas the vacancy has arisen for the subject of Political Science and Economics and that roster was not submitted. 7. 7. Insofar as the rejection on the ground that Petitioner’s appointment was not made through Pavitra portal is concerned, irstly it needs to be noted that the Petitioner has been upgraded from part- time / clock hour basis to full-time basis and is not a fresh appointment Patil-SR (ch) 3 of 5 wp 10874-22.doc and secondly, up-gradation has taken place on 10th August 2020 at which time, Pavitra portal was not functional. The provisions of Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 [for short, “MEPS Rules”] would apply to the fresh appointment and not to up-gradation of already appointed teacher. The impugned order does not dispute the appointment of Petitioner in the year 2015 and hence, the requirement of TEAT certiicate will not be applicable. The Petitioner was appointed on part-time post for History subjects and the statement of staing pattern at Exhibit- “M” to the petition discloses that post was available which fact has not been considered. There is also substance in the submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in event the roster was not duly submitted along with the proposal of Petitioner, the appropriate course would have been to call upon the management to submit the requisite documents. In any event, from the material placed on record, it is evident that roster was duly veriied and submitted and therefore, the Respondent No.2 has factually erred in holding that roster was not submitted. 8. In the light of above discussion, the grounds on which proposal came to be rejected are clearly unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Respondent No.2 is directed to grant approval to the Petitioner’s up-gradation to the post Patil-SR (ch) 4 of 5 wp 10874-22.doc of full-time Shikshan Sevak / Assistant Teacher in the Respondent No.4 school with efect from 17th August 2020 along with consequential beneits. 9. Writ petition is allowed in above terms. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] [M. S. Karnik, J.] Patil-SR (ch) 5 of 5