wp-12560.25+ 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 931 WRIT PETITION NO. 12560 OF 2025 ANJUMAN TALEEM UL MUSLIMEEN THR ITS PRESIDENT AIJAZ A. GAFFAR MALIK AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND 941 WRIT PETITION NO. 12572 OF 2025 ANJUMAN TALEEM UL MUSLIMEEN THR ITS PRESIDENT AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... Mr. M.N. Shaikh Advocate h/f. Mr. S.S. Kazi Advocate for Petitioners in both Writ Petitions. Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for Resp. Nos. 1 to 4. ... CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ. DATE : 10th OCTOBER, 2025 ORDER : 1. Both the matters have been filed by the institution as well as the shikshan sevak/assistant teacher, who are stated to have been recommended by petitioner No.1, for getting the orders 2025:BHC-AUG:28970-DB wp-12560.25+ 2 dated 20th September 2023 and 11th September 2023, set aside, respectively. 2. Petitioner No.2 in Writ Petition No.12560 of 2025, Shaikh Musaddiq joined the services from 15th June 2015 as assistant teacher on no grant basis. By order dated 1st March 2016 respondent No.3 had approved his services as assistant teacher. He states that on the retirement of one Shaikh Mohammad Hanif Qadar on superannuation on 31st May 2022, who was working as assistant teacher, a clear and vacant post was available with petitioner No.1 in the school M.A.R. Anglo Urdu High School at Pratapnagar, District-Jalgaon. Petitioner No.1 then passed resolution dated 14th November 2022 and transferred petitioner No.2 in place of the retired assistant teacher. Thereafter the proposal was given by the headmaster of the school on 20th November 2022 for grant of approval of the services of the petitioner as shikshan sevak. According to the petitioner No.2 actually he was entitled to receive the approval as assistant teacher and not as shikshan sevak. The headmaster rectified the mistake and communicated to the education officer that the approval should be granted as assistant teacher. However, the education officer passed the impugned order on 20th September wp-12560.25+ 3 2023 thereby granting approval to the petitioner No.2 as shikshan sevak, which according to the petitioners, is wrong. 3. Petitioner No.2 in Writ Petition No.12572 of 2025, Sawood Husain submits that he joined the services on 15th June 2025 as assistant teacher on non-grant post. Thereafter on the retirement of one assistant teacher namely, Shaikh Mohammed Sajid with effect from 30th May 2021, a clear and vacant post was available in the same school run by petitioner No.1 management and petitioner No.2 came to be transferred in his place, in view of the resolution. After petitioner No.2 joined his services, headmaster had given proposal on 30th August 2021 for granting approval of the services of petitioner No.2 as shikshan sevak. When he realized about the mistake, he made communication and requested that the approval should be granted as assistant teacher. However, the education officer, by impugned order dated 11th September 2023, granted approval to the services of the petitioner as shikshan sevak. 4. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Shaikh Advocate holding for Mr. Kazi Advocate for petitioners in both Writ Petitions and learned AGP Mr. Tambe, A.G.P. for respondents. wp-12560.25+ 4 5. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that though it was the mistake on the part of the headmaster to send the proposals for the post of shikshan sevak, actually petitioner No.2 in both the matters were in fact placed, in view of the resolutions, in the place of respective assistant teachers, who stood retired on superannuation. 6. The first and foremost fact to be noted is that there appears to be mistake in the resolution itself. Though in the subject it is stated that in place of retired assistant teacher, the assistant teacher is to be appointed, in the resolution it is stated that said petitioner No.2 is appointed as shikshan sevak and the reference is to the name and post held by the said retired employee. We can consider that it is an obvious mistake that has been committed by petitioner No.1. Headmaster of the school, before signing the proposal, ought to have then considered and got the mistake corrected from petitioner No.1. Now, with the persuasion by the learned Advocate who is holding for Mr. Kazi Advocate for the petitioners, we are agreeing to allow the petitioners to pass the fresh resolutions and then submit fresh proposals. However, this mistake ought to have been avoided by wp-12560.25+ 5 petitioner No.1. Taking into consideration the proposals those were submitted by the headmaster, there appears to be no wrong committed by the education officer. However, he also could have asked for the explanation if there was any kind of doubt, before passing the impugned orders. The matter could not have come to this Court if at each stage the concerned person would have realized the mistake. 7. For the obvious mistake that has been committed by petitioner No.1, we impose costs of Rs.20,000/- each in both the Petitions, to be paid to the Library of the Government Pleader’s Office, High Court, Aurangabad Bench. With these observations, we pass following order:- 8. The impugned orders dated 30th September 2023 and 11th September 2023, respectively, issued by respondent No.3, stand quashed and set aside. Petitioner No.1 is permitted to pass fresh resolutions, taking into consideration the retirement of respective persons against whose retirement petitioner No.2 in both the Petitions were transferred under the resolution dated 20th November 2022 and 20th June 2021 respectively, and after the corrections in the resolutions, petitioner No.1 to take up the wp-12560.25+ 6 further steps of sending fresh proposal to respondent No.3 – Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. 9. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submit that the entire work of correction and passing fresh resolutions and sending proposals to respondent No.3 would be undertaken within fifteen days from today. 10. After receipt of such fresh proposals, respondent No.3 to decide the same on its own merits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of those proposals. 11. Petitioner No.1 to deposit costs of Rs.20,000/- each in both the Petitions with the the Library of the Government Pleader’s Office, High Court, Aurangabad Bench, within a period of fifteen days from today. 12. Both the Writ Petitions stand disposed of, accordingly. [HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE asb/OCT25