WP-12299-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12299 OF 2025 1. Shri. Vaibhav Vijaykumar Patil, ] Age: 28 years, Occupation: Service, ] R/o. A/P. Malik Peth, Taluka: Mohol, ] District: Solapur ] ...Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, ] Through the Secretary, ] School Education and Sports ] Department, Mantralaya, ] Mumbai – 4000 032 ] 2. The Commissioner of Education, ] School Education Department, ] Maharashtra State, Pune. ] 3. The Director of Education, ] (Secondary and Higher Secondary), ] Maharashtra State, Pune- 1. ] 4. The Deputy Director of Education, ] Pune Region, Pune, Having its oice ] at, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, ] Camp, Pune – 411001. ] 5. The Education Oicer (Secondary), ] Zilla Parishad, Solapur, ] Having Oice at, Zilla Parishad ] Building, Solapur. ] 6. Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, ] Mangalweda, Taluka:Mangalweda, ] District : Solapur, ] Through its President/Secretary. ] Shubham Talle 1 of 11 WP-12299-2025.doc 7. English School, Mangalwedha, ] Taluka: Mangalwedha, District: Solapur, ] Through its Head Master ] ...Respondents —————— Mr. Utkarsh S. Desai i/by Mr. Prashant S. Bhavake for the Petitioner. Mr. S.B. Kalel, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : M. S. Karnik & Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ. Date : 26th November 2025. ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) 1. SUBJECT MATTER: 1.1 The matter pertains to grant of Shalarth Identity and inclusion of Petitioner’s name in the Shalarth System, consequent to grant of approval to Petitioner’s appointment. 1.2 Feeling aggrieved by the inaction on the part of Respondent No.4- Deputy Director of Education, the Petitioner seeks directions to the Deputy Director of Education to grant Shalarth Identity to the Petitioner and include Petitioner’s name in the Shalarth System. 2. Considering the nature of relief prayed in the Petition we have heard the Writ Petition inally by consent of the parties. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their factual status. Shubham Talle 2 of 11 WP-12299-2025.doc 4. Facts in brief:- 4.1 It is not disputed that the Petitioner was appointed on the post of ‘Junior Clerk’ on 1st March 2019 by the Respondent No.6 - School Management in the Respondent No.7 School by following due process of law. An advertisement was published by the School Management to ill up the subject-matter post. Recruitment process was conducted wherein the Petitioner was found to be eligible to be appointed on the subject-matter post. 4.2 It is also an undisputed fact that the Education Oicer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Solapur has accorded approval to the services of Petitioner vide order dated 23rd August, 2021. 4.3 Consequent to the approval granted by the Education Oicer, the School and the Management submitted a proposal on 28th February 2022 with the Education oicer to forward and recommend the said proposal to the Deputy Director of Education to grant Shalarth Identity to the Petitioner. The Education Oicer, vide his covering letter dated 30th December 2022 submitted a comprehensive proposal to the Deputy Director of Education to include Petitioner’s name in the Shalarth System and to grant him Shalarth identity. 4.4 On 8th September 2023 the Deputy Director of Education rejected the Shalarth Id proposal raising certain queries. Shubham Talle 3 of 11 WP-12299-2025.doc 4.5 On 24th January 2025, the School Management submitted the explanation to the Education oicer. In turn, the Education oicer was satisied that the queries are properly answered. The Education Oicer submitted an explanation on 27th March 2025 and resubmitted the proposal to the Deputy Director of Education for grant of Shalarth Id to the Petitioner. 4.6 We are content that the Education oicer has got satisied with the explanation given by the School Management on the queries raised by the Deputy Director of Education, and only then has resubmitted the proposal. The issues as regards to vacancy, roaster, and advertisement are correctly addressed and answered by the School Management as also by the Education Oicer. (i) Although the Petitioner was shown to be appointed on 1st March 2019, yet his services are approved w.e.f. 6th December 2019 i.e. upon retirement of earlier employee namely Mr. Dange. The PPO order of Mr. Dange was also submitted. (ii) As the appointment is against the vacancy created due to superannuation of earlier employee, it was not needful to seek separate permission since the post was not newly created. (iii) The objection as to the vacancy and creation of additional post is factually misplaced. The Petitioner was appointed against the vacancy created due to retirement of Mr. Dange. Shubham Talle 4 of 11 WP-12299-2025.doc It was not a newly created or additional post, nor that all posts of Junior Clerk were already illed in. (iv) Its clear from the roaster and the advertisement that the subject-matter post was meant for General category. Hence the Petitioner was appointed from the General Category. (v) As such, Petitioner is before this court seeking directions to the Respondent authority, particularly the Deputy Director of Education to grant Shalarth Identity as also to include Petitioner’s name in the Shalarth System. 4.7 Following are the important sequence of events necessary to pass the directions to the Deputy Director of Education. Sr.No. Particulars Dates 1. Appointment of Petitioner on the subject-matter post of Junior Clerk/Shikshan sevak 01-03-2019 2. Grant of approval by the Education Oicer 23-08-2021 w.e.f. 06-12-2019 3. Date of recommendation letter and Proposal to the Deputy Director of Education for Shalarth Identity to the 30-12-2022 Shubham Talle 5 of 11 WP-12299-2025.doc Petitioner 4 Date of rejection by the Deputy director of education 08-09-2023 5 Date of submission of explanation and resubmission of the proposal 27-03-2025. 5. Petitioner’s arguments: 5.1 Mr. Utkarsh Desai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that in view of the law settled by this Court in a number of matters, directions are needed to be given to the Deputy Director of Education to process the Shalarth Identity proposal, and to grant Shalarth Identity to the Petitioner. 5.2 Mr. Desai would further submit that in the given set of facts, the inaction on the part of the Deputy Director of Education is highly depreciable and he can not question the approval granted by the Education Oicer at this juncture. 5.3 Mr. Desai would further submit that time and again this Court has held that the once the approval is granted by the Education Oicer, the Deputy Director of Education can not refuse Shalarth Identity questioning the approval granted by the Education Oicer. With this, Mr. Desai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner prays to allow the Writ Petition by issuing appropriate directions to the Deputy Director of Education. Shubham Talle 6 of 11 WP-12299-2025.doc 6. Respondent’s arguments:- 6.1 Obviously the School and the Management support Petitioner’s case. 6.2 Mr. Kalel, learned Assistant Government Pleader would fairly agree with the position of law on the subject matter issue, and would pray to pass an appropriate order. 7. Discussion and consideration: - 7.1 It is an admitted fact that the Shalarth System is introduced by the Government of Maharashtra to streamline the process of granting and releasing the salaries of the Employees in the private schools. 7.2 Needless to mention, such Employees of private schools whose appointments are duly approved by the Education Oicer, are entitled to get their names incorporated in the Shalarth System and also to get Shalarth Identity. In other words, Approval to appointment by the Education Oicer is the condition precedent for grant of Shalarth Identity. Grant of approval is a crucial stage and a qualiication for inclusion in the Shalarth System. 7.3 This Court in number of cases has observed that once the Education Oicer grants approval to the appointment of an employee of a Private School and submits proposal for grant of Shubham Talle 7 of 11 WP-12299-2025.doc Shalarth Identity, the Deputy Director of Education is under an obligation to grant Shalarth Identity to such Employee and to include the employee’s name in the Shalarth System. 7.4 It is true that Deputy Director of Education may call the School Management or the Employee for certain clariication if any data to be incorporated is inadequate, however in no sense can the Shalarth Identity be withheld/declined questioning the approval in existence. 7.5 The grant of approval to the appointment of an employee necessarily mandates the Deputy Director of Education to grant Shalarth Identity to such Employee. In other words, the Deputy Director of Education is under mandate to grant Shalarth Identity to such Employee whose services are approved by the Education Oicer and the proposal is submitted for grant of Shalarth Identity. 7.6 Inaction on the part of the Deputy Director of Education to grant Shalarth Identity despite the proposal containing approval granted by the Education Oicer, or questioning the approval by the Education Oicer is not at all permissible. 7.7 We refer to latest judgment and order dated 21st November 2025 passed by this Court in the case of Saniya Shahrukh Shaikh & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors Shubham Talle 8 of 11 WP-12299-2025.doc bearing Civil Writ Petition No. 12195 of 2025, wherein upon recording various judgments and orders passed by this Court we have observed as follows: “7.15 From the discussion above and for the reasons recorded, we hold that, (i) The ban on appointments imposed vide G.R. dated 04/05-05- 2020 could not prevent the present school management i.e. Minority Educational Institutions from appointing the Petitioner No.1. (ii) Once approval is granted by the Education Oicer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, the Deputy Director of Education neither can refuse nor can merely sit over the proposal to include the name of the concerned employee in the Shalarth System. Rather the Deputy Director of Education is under mandate to issue Shalarth Identity to such employee and to include such employee’s name in the Shalarth system. Needless to mention, this being in the nature of an administrative job, the Deputy Director of Education must immediately complete the said exercise of granting Shalarth Identity to the concerned employee. Refusal or inaction, as the case may be, on the part of the Deputy Director of Education not only results into deprivation of concerned employee’s legitimate right of salary/honorium, but also causes unnecessary court litigation. (iii) Deputy Director of Education doesn’t sit in appeal over the approval granted by the Education Oicer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad while granting Shalarth Identity under GR dated 07-11-2012 r/w GR dated 20- 03-2019. However, it’s not that the approvals granted by the Education Oicers (Secondary), Zilla Parishads cannot be subjected to review at all. Review of an approval is permissible within the four corners of law, the procedure contemplated, and in the peculiar facts Shubham Talle 9 of 11 WP-12299-2025.doc of the cases e.g. if the approval was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation etc.” 8. In the case in hand, the Deputy Director of Education has refused to grant Shalarth Identity to the Petitioner disputing the approval granted by the Education Oicer, and despite there being directions and orders passed by this Court on a number of occasions. 9. As we have observed, the approval granted by the Education Oicer is not excepted from getting it reviewed by the competent authority, but in no case Shalarth Identity can be refused once the approval is granted. Review of the approval can deinitely be taken, but in due process and within four corners of law. In the present case, we observe that the Education Oicer has even got himself satisied with the explanation tendered by the School Management, and then has endorsed the proposal for grant of Shalarth Identity thereby explaining each query raised by the Deputy Director of Education. 10. In view of the above, we ind that the Petitioner has made out a successful case for issuance of certain directions to the Respondent - Deputy Director of Education. Hence, we pass the following order:- Shubham Talle 10 of 11 WP-12299-2025.doc ::ORDER:: A) The Writ Petition stands allowed; B) The Respondent No.4 – Deputy Director of Education is directed to include name of the Petitioner in the Shalarth System and grant Shalarth Identity to the Petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order’s copy. C) Needless to mention, the Education Oicer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Solapur and the Deputy Director of Education, Pune shall release the salary grant/honorarium grant for the Petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of granting Shalarth Identity to the Petitioner. D) Rule made absolute in above terms. E) Writ Petition stands disposed of keeping all contentions open to the respective parties in the eventuality. [ Ajit B. Kadethankar, J. ] [ M. S. Karnik, J. ] Shubham Talle 11 of 11 TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Digitally signed by TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Date: 2025.12.01 20:30:10 +0530