9-WP-3089-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3089 OF 2023 Janseva Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kasaba Alate, Thr. Its President/ Secretary And Ors … Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra And Ors … Respondents —————— Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioners. Mr. A. P. Vanarase, AGP for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : M. S. Karnik & Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ. Date : December 2, 2025. P. C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners. 2. The Petitioners are challenging the impugned order dated 30th September 2022 passed by Respondent No. 5 – the Education Oicer (Secondary), whereby the proposal seeking individual approval to the appointment of Petitioner No. 3, made by Petitioner No. 1–Education Institution at Petitioner No. 2–Secondary School to the post of Peon, has been rejected. 3. Learned AGP has supported the impugned order. Shubham Talle 1 of 4 9-WP-3089-2023.doc 4. We have perused the impugned order dated 30th September 2022, which is at page 55 of the Petition. The impugned order states that there are three deiciencies in the proposal, on account of which approval has been rejected. As regards the irst deiciency, the Education Oicer has stated that the permission of the Commission for issuing an advertisement for the vacant post had not been obtained. Based on this, Respondent No. 5 – Education Oicer – rejected the proposal vide order dated 30th September 2022. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied upon the decision of this Court in Shital Kumar Patil vs. State of Maharashtra1, wherein paragraphs 17 and 18 read thus: “17. The respondent No. 2 in the impugned order did not consider the crucial aspect that neither the said Government Resolution dated 23rd October, 2013 nor the Government Resolution dated 12th February, 2015 were applicable to the minority institutions. The Government of Maharashtra itself had issued a subsequent Government Resolution dated 13th July, 2016 after adverting to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka (supra) and in case of Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College (supra) and had clearly stated that the minority institutions had to be excluded from the applicability to the section 5(1) of the MEPS Act. It was further stated that if the minority institutions seek permission before recruitment, then permission should be given by following the procedure stated in the said Government Resolution. But if an appointment is made by minority institutions without taking permission then in that case appropriate action shall be taken for granting individual approval to such appointment. 18. The respondent No. 2 in the impugned order has totally overlooked the Government Resolution dated 13th July, 2016 which was issued in conformity with the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation vs. State of 1 2022 (1) Mh.L.J Shubham Talle 2 of 4 9-WP-3089-2023.doc Karnataka (supra) and in case of Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College (supra). In our view, the respondent No. 2 thus could not have relied upon the Government Resolutions dated 12th February, 2015, 8th August 2017 and the Government Resolution dated 23rd October, 2013 in the impugned order while rejecting the proposal submitted by the respondent No. 4 in respect of the appointment of the petitioner made to the post of peon. Section 5(1) of the MEPS Act is excluded and is not applicable to the minority institutions including the respondent No. 3 in this ease. The respondent No. 2 did not consider all these crucial aspects in the impugned order and has mechanically rejected the proposal made by the respondent No. 4 to the appointment of the petitioner to the post of the peon.” 6. The Petitioner-Institution is admittedly a minority institution. The decision of this Court in Shital Kumar Patil vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Hence, rejection of the proposal on the ground that permission for issuing the advertisement was not obtained is unsustainable. 7. The second deiciency pertains to the alleged non-submission of a No Objection Certiicate for illing up the post. Even this objection is unsustainable, since the Petitioner is a minority institution and the post in question is a sanctioned and vacant post. 8. The third deiciency noted is that the list of employees working on non-teaching posts had not been attached. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that no opportunity was granted by the Education Oicer to cure/rectify the third deiciencies. 9. In such view of the matter, we hold that the irst two deiciencies mentioned in the impugned order are unsustainable and cannot be Shubham Talle 3 of 4 9-WP-3089-2023.doc considered deiciencies at all. The impugned order is quashed so far as the irst two deiciencies. 10. As regards the third deiciency, the impugned order shall be treated as a show-cause notice. The Petitioners shall submit an explanation and cure the deiciency by providing details regarding the non-teaching staf within a period of three weeks from today. The Education Oicer shall decide the proposal for approval of the appointment of the Petitioner afresh on the basis of the explanation submitted by the Management, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within twelve weeks from the date of communication of this order. 11. In case the approval is granted, the Shalarth ID be issued by the Deputy Director of Education. 12. Writ Petition is disposed of. [ Ajit B. Kadethankar, J. ] [ M. S. Karnik, J. ] Shubham Talle 4 of 4 TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Digitally signed by TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Date: 2025.12.03 20:23:23 +0530