38-WP-13718-2023(C).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 13718 OF 2023 Prabodhan Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha And Others ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents —————— Mr. Prashant Bhavake, for the Petitioners. Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh & Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ. Date : September 22, 2026. P. C. : 1. By the present Petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 2nd/5th December, 2022, by which the Petitioners’ proposal for seeking approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.3 to the post of Shikshan Sevak (Physical Training Teacher) came to be rejected. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners would point out that the rejection was on the ground of the proposal being submitted belatedly, by relying upon the Government Resolution dated 10th June, 2022. He submits that the Government Resolution dated 10th June, 2022 does not apply, as the said Resolution was issued calling for submission of proposals which had not been filed though appointments were made, within a period of 3 months. He submits that, in the present case, the Jamadar - SL 1 of 4 2026:BHC-KOL:9104-DB 38-WP-13718-2023(C).doc Petitioner No.3 was appointed on 1st August, 2022, and the proposal was submitted on 11th November, 2022. 3. He would further submits that the other reason does not constitute a ground for rejection, as it is stated that there is no provision for appointment to the post of Physical Training Teacher through the Pavitra Portal. He submits that no other reasons are assigned for rejecting the proposal, and the impugned order is unsustainable. 4. Learned AGP appearing for the Respondents would submit that the Petitioner No.3 was not appointed through the prescribed procedure, and therefore, the proposal was rejected. She would further submit that the appointment of Petitioner No.3 was subsequent to the issuance of the Government Resolution dated 10th June, 2022, and therefore, the proposal has been rightly rejected by the Education Officer. 5. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. 6. The proposal seeking approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.3 was forwarded on 10th November, 2022, in which it was specifically mentioned that one Rajendra Mahadev Kadam had retired on 31st July, 2022, and, as the post had become vacant, considering the Petitioner's qualification, he was appointed to the post of Shikshan Sevak in the subject of Physical Training. Jamadar - SL 2 of 4 38-WP-13718-2023(C).doc 7. Though contention is being raised by the learned AGP that the appointment is not in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, the impugned order does not reject the proposal on the said ground. It is well-settled that the reasons for rejection cannot be supplemented during the hearing or by way of an Affidavit. The Education Officer has rejected the proposal only on the ground of the Government Resolution dated 10th June, 2022. 8. The Government Resolution is annexed at page 59 of the Petition. The Government Resolution provides that the proposals which have not been submitted in respect of the teaching and non-teaching staff employed by the private schools should be submitted within a period of three months. 9. In the present case, the Petitioner No.3 was appointed on 1st August, 2022, and therefore, the Government Resolution dated 10th June, 2022 is not applicable, as it refers to the appointments made prior to 10th June, 2022 and calls upon the Management to submit the proposals within three months thereafter. 10. The proposal has been submitted on 11th November, 2022, and there is no delay in its submission. The Education Officer, by the impugned order, has itself recorded that there was no provision for appointment of the Physical Training Teacher through the Pavitra Jamadar - SL 3 of 4 38-WP-13718-2023(C).doc Portal, and therefore, the said reason is not germane for rejecting the approval. 11. In light of the above, the impugned order is clearly unsustainable and is hereby quashed and set aside. 12. Respondent No.5 – Education Officer is directed to grant approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.3 within a period of three weeks from today. 13. Upon the approval being granted, Respondent No.4 – Deputy Director of Education to include the name of Petitioner No.3 in the Shalarth Pranali and issue the Shalarth ID within a period of two weeks thereafter. The arrears of grant-in-aid salary to be released within a period of three weeks thereafter. 14. The Petition is allowed in the above terms. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Jamadar - SL 4 of 4