908-WP-7304-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7304 OF 2025 Pravin Shripal Dhavale And Anr ...Petitioners Versus The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Sec. School Education Dept. And Ors ...Respondents —————— Mr. Sagar Mane a/w Mr. Rushikesh Jagdale, Ms. Neha Farakate i/b Ms. Ashwini Bandiwadekar, for the Petitioner. Ms. Tejas Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH & NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. Date : SEPTEMBER 09, 2026 P. C. : 1. By the present Petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 23rd May, 2022 passed by the Education Officer, Respondent No. 3, rejecting the proposal submitted for the appointment of the Petitioner to the post of peon on the basis of Government Resolutions (“GR”) dated 28th January, 2019 and 11th December, 2020. 2. The facts of the case are that the Petitioner No. 2 school had two sanctioned posts of peon, and one of the posts, which was occupied by Shri S. V. Dhavale became vacant upon his retirement on 30th June, 2019. Petitioner No. 2, by letter dated 20th May, 2019, requested the Education Officer for permission to fill the vacant seat. However, by letter dated 7th June, 2019, permission was refused on the basis of the Arya Chavan 1 of 6 2026:BHC-KOL:8715-DB 908-WP-7304-2025.doc GR dated 28th January, 2019, stating that separate orders were required to be issued by the Government regarding the staffing pattern of Class IV employees. Prior to the communication dated 7th June, 2019 refusing permission, Petitioner No. 2 had published an advertisement on 2nd June, 2019 inviting applications for teaching posts as well as the post of peon sanctioned on aided basis, in response to which Petitioner No. 1 was selected. Petitioner No. 1 joined the services of Petitioner No. 2 with effect from 1st July, 2019. The proposal was submitted to Respondent No. 3 on 5th December, 2019, pursuant to which the impugned order was passed rejecting the approval. 3. Mr. Mane, learned counsel for the Petitioner, would submit that the application seeking permission to issue advertisement was sent on 20th May, 2019, which request was rejected on 7th June, 2019, prior to which on 2nd June, 2019, the advertisement was already issued. He submits that Petitioner No. 1 cannot be faulted for inaction on part of the Education Officer to respond promptly to the application seeking permission for advertisement. He would further point out the staffing pattern at page 26 for the year 2019-2020, reflecting two aided sanctioned posts, one of which became vacant upon retirement of Shri Dhavale. He submits that rejection of the approval is on the basis of GRs dated 28th January, 2019 and 11th December, 2020, which was considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arya Chavan 2 of 6 908-WP-7304-2025.doc Vikas Shikshan Mandal And Others vs The State of Maharashtra And Others1. The Hon'ble Division Bench held that the earlier staffing pattern of 2005 stood superseded by the staffing pattern for Class IV employees with effect from 11th December, 2020. He submits that in view of the said decision, the reasons for rejection of the approval are no longer sustainable. 4. Per contra, learned AGP would submit that though permission to issue the advertisement was rejected, the management went ahead and appointed the Petitioner, for which the State should not be imposed with the financial burden. She would further submit that on the date when the impugned order dated 23rd May, 2022 was passed, the GRs dated 28th January, 2019 and 11th December, 2020 governed the field, and accordingly, the Education Officer, being bound by the GRs, has passed the impugned order correctly, which does not deserve any interference. 5. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. 6. The impugned order rejects the proposal for approval by relying on the GRs dated 28th January, 2019 and 11th December, 2020, which provided that upon the staffing pattern being approved, the vacant posts lapsed. In case of Vikas Shikshan Mandal And Others vs The State of Maharashtra And Others (supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench 1 WP NO. 6812 of 2024 decided on 02/02/2026(High Court Circuit Bench at Kolhapur) Arya Chavan 3 of 6 908-WP-7304-2025.doc among other points, framed the following point for consideration : “(iii) Changes in the staffing patterns in the private schools, effects of the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2013, 12.02.2015, 28.01.2019, and 12.12.2020, and fate of the appointments made during the transition of the policies on staffing patterns.” 7. The GRs dated 28th January, 2019 and 12th December, 2020 were also under consideration. The Hon'ble Division Bench noted that the staffing pattern of 2013 was never implemented. It further considered that the Government introduced another GR on 28th January, 2019, by which new staffing pattern was introduced based on the suggestions advanced by a committee constituted under a GR of 2015, however, this GR of 2019 specifically excluded the staffing pattern for Class IV category employees in private schools. 8. After considering the staffing pattern for Class IV category employees introduced by the GR dated 11th December, 2020, the Hon'ble Division Bench held that the GR of 2020 became operational with effect from date of its issuance i.e. 11th December, 2020. It held that the staffing pattern of 2005 stood superseded by new staffing pattern for Class IV employees only with effect from 11th December, 2020. In view of the said decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench, the reasons for rejecting approval are clearly unsustainable. It cannot be disputed that when the impugned order was passed, the GRs dated 28th January, 2019 and 11th December, 2020 were governing the field, and Arya Chavan 4 of 6 908-WP-7304-2025.doc the Education Officer was bound by them. However, in view of the decision in the case of Vikas Shikshan Mandal And Others vs The State of Maharashtra And Others (supra), the reasons are no longer sustainable, and the impugned order is therefore, required to be quashed and set aside. 9. The next question to be considered is whether the release of the grant-in-aid salary should be with effect from the date of appointment or from the date of order of this Court. Learned AGP has rightly pointed out that though the Education Officer rejected the application seeking permission to publish the advertisement, the Petitioner No. 2 management has appointed Petitioner No. 1. Though it is sought to be contended that the rejection was on the basis of GR dated 28th January, 2019, which is now clarified by the decision in the case of Vikas Shikshan Mandal And Others vs The State of Maharashtra And Others (supra), it cannot be lost sight of, that despite specific rejection by the Education Officer, the management has proceeded to appoint Petitioner No. 1. Even if the request was made by letter dated 20th May, 2019 which is not placed on record, once the Education Officer had rejected the application, the appropriate course for the management was to approach this Court seeking necessary permission for appointment of the Petitioner. Instead, the Petitioner No. 2 proceeded to appoint Petitioner No. 1 with effect from 1st July, 2019. Arya Chavan 5 of 6 908-WP-7304-2025.doc 10. The staffing pattern annexed at page 26 of the Petition for the year 2019-2020, published on 21st September, 2021, shows two vacant posts. The GR dated 28th January, 2019 prohibited the filling of posts unless the staffing pattern was approved, which was approved in the year 2021. As the staffing pattern was approved in 2021, the appointment of the Petitioner as per the staffing pattern is in accordance with the staffing pattern. However, the Petitioner will not be entitled to grant-in-aid salary for the period from 1st July, 2019 till September 2021, i.e. the date of approval of staffing pattern. 11. In light of the discussion above, the impugned order dated 23rd May, 2022 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 3 is directed to grant approval to the Petitioner's appointment with effect from 1st July, 2019 for a period of three years on payment of monthly honorarium from October 2021 till July 2022, and further approval as a peon on payment of monthly salary in regular pay scale with effect from 1st July, 2022 within a period of three weeks from today. Respondent No. 2 to include the name of Petitioner No. 1 in Shalarth Pranali and issue Shalarth ID as a peon within a period of three weeks thereafter, followed by proportionate release of grant-in-aid as per this order within a period of three weeks thereafter. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.] Arya Chavan 6 of 6