1 of 3 936-CP.615.2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 936 CONT. PETITION NO. 615 OF 2024 IN WP/5782/2017 DR ZAKIR HUSSAIN MARATHI PRIMARY SCHOOL THROUGH REHAN SHAFI AHMED KAZI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY & ORS. ... Mr. Atul B. Gatne, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. J. Salgare, AGP for Respondents-State. Mr. Avinash D. Aghav, Advocate for Respondent No.5. ... CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 29th APRIL, 2025 P.C.:- 1. By order dated 15th March 2018, passed in Writ Petition No.5782 of 2017, this Court issued the directions as follows:- 3. We have considered the submissions. As stated by the respondents, it is the Director of Education (Primary), who has to sanction the staffing pattern. After the change of medium, naturally, depending upon the strength of students, the posts of Assistant Teachers/ Shikshan Sevaks are to be sanctioned by the Director. The proposal is already forwarded to the Deputy Director. 4. The Deputy Director has to forward the proposal to the Director of Education (Primary). In case the Deputy Director has not forwarded the proposal to the Director of Education, then the Deputy Director of Education shall forward the proposal (Exh. R-III) (Page 135) immediately within a period of three weeks. The Director of Education, on receipt of the proposal, shall take decision upon the correction of the staffing pattern expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the proposal. 5. Depending upon the decision taken by the Director of Education with regard to the staffing pattern, the Education Officer shall take decision on the proposal for approval of the appointment of three 2025:BHC-AUG:12993-DB 2 of 3 936-CP.615.2024 Shikshan Sevaks pending before him expeditiously, preferably within two months from the decision of the Deputy Director of Education. 6. The honourarium/ salary of those Shikshan Sevaks/Assistant Teachers who are approved as per order dated 10/3/2017, shall not be stopped. 2. Pursuant to the said directions, the Director of Education (Primary) forwarded the proposal to the Government on 15th February 2024, considering which the Government has taken a decision that as per Government Resolution dated 28th August 2015, posts are sanctioned on the basis of strength of the students. As per the staffing pattern approved to the Petitioner for the academic year 2014-15, three posts were sanctioned for Marathi medium. Though, only three posts were sanctioned, Petitioner-Institution without obtaining prior permission of the Government filled in six posts. Therefore, three posts filled in by the Petitioner are additional posts. Petitioner was granted permission to change the medium by order dated 12th November 2012, on condition that no additional classes or posts shall be admissible to the Petitioner. Since the three posts are filled in by the Petitioner without permission of the Government, the teachers working on those three additional posts, their salary is to be paid by the Petitioner- Institution. Government has, therefore, grant sanctioned to the three additional posts on self-finance basis. 3. Petitioner states that Petitioner-Institution was grant-in-aid school and, therefore, Respondents could not have granted sanction to 3 of 3 936-CP.615.2024 the three additional posts on self-finance basis. By granting such permission, Respondents have committed contempt of the orders passed by this Court. 4. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Respondents have not fixed the staffing pattern of the Petitioner. Learned APP in reply to the said submission has placed reliance on the staffing pattern of the year 2012-13 and 2013-14, wherein three posts are sanctioned to the Petitioner. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner disputes the same saying that this pertains to the Urdu medium and not Marathi medium. 5. We do not agree with the said submission, if the Petitioner has any grievance about the sanction of post on self-finance basis, the Petitioner may avail appropriate remedy as available in law. 6. From the above, we find that there is compliance of the order passed by this Court. Hence, contempt petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner. (MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) Tauseef