104-WP-18388-2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 18388 OF 2024 Shekhar Subhash Salvi ...Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra Throu. The Sec. School Education And Sports Dept And Others ...Respondents —————— Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioner. Mr. A. P. Vanarase, AGP for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh & Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ. Date : September 28, 2026. P. C. : 1. By the present petition, the order of the Education Oicer dated 30th July, 2024, rejecting the proposal submitted seeking approval of the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Peon, is impugned. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the post of Peon became vacant in the Respondent No. 7 school due to the termination of one S.K. Kamble. An advertisement was issued on 2nd June, 2014, and pursuant to interviews conducted, the petitioner was selected on 15th June, 2014. He submits that the proposal was submitted on 20th June, 2024. He submits that by the impugned order, certain deiciencies were noted; however, no opportunity was given to Harish 1 of 6 HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Digitally signed by HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Date: 2026.09.29 14:23:04 +0530 104-WP-18388-2024.doc the management to comply with the said deiciencies. He submits that insofar as the deiciencies at Serial Nos. 1 to 7 of the impugned order are concerned, an explanation can be submitted in that regard. He submits that insofar as the deiciency at Serial No. 8 is concerned, the same is settled by the decision of this Court in the case of Vikas Shikshan Mandal And Others v. The State of Maharashtra And Others (Writ Petition No. 6812 of 2024, decided on 2nd February, 2026). He submits that in view of the said decision, the staing pattern which would be applicable would be of the year 2005, and that the new staing pattern for Class IV employees was operational only with efect from 11th December, 2020. 3. Learned AGP would submit that the petitioner claims to have been appointed in the year 2014 and has submitted the proposal in the year 2024. He would further point out that by Government Resolutions, timelines and guidelines as regards the absorption of surplus non- teaching staf due to the new staing pattern prescribed on 28th January, 2019, are required to be followed. He would further submit that the State Government introduced a new staing pattern for non- teaching staf of Class IV on 11th December, 2020, in which the Class IV posts came to be abolished and a policy decision was taken of sanctioning a consolidated amount as 'Shipai Bhatta' to private aided schools as per the ratio of total enrollment of students. He submits that Harish 2 of 6 104-WP-18388-2024.doc in view thereof, there is no warrant for interference with the impugned order. 4. Insofar as the deiciencies which are noted at Serial Nos. 1 to 7 are concerned, it is for the management to submit an explanation to the satisfaction of the Education Oicer as regards the deiciencies noted in the impugned order. Insofar as the deiciency at Serial No. 8 is concerned, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vikas Shikshan Mandal (supra), considered the changes in the staing pattern in the private school and the efect of the Government Resolutions dated 23rd October, 2013, 12th February, 2015, 28th January, 2019, and 12th December, 2020, and the fate of the appointments made during the transition of the policies on staing pattern. The Hon'ble Division Bench considered the Government Resolutions as regards the changes in the staing pattern and held in Paragraphs 12.14 and 12.15 as Under: "12.14 We are of considered view to hold that until the new staing patters were introduced in 2019 and 2020, the last staing policy introduced vide Government Resolution dated 25.11.2005 was holding ield. Thus, the conundrum created by the various Government Resolutions from 2013 to 2019 & 2020 (IV category) over the staing pattern and the fate of the appointments made in the mean period, stands solved. Staing pattern sought to be introduced by Government Resolution of 2013 lost its efect ab initio in view of Government Resolution of 2015. Meaning thereby, the earlier Harish 3 of 6 104-WP-18388-2024.doc staing pattern of 2005 stood superseded by the staing pattern of 2019 (for all categories excluding Class IV) and by the staing pattern of 2020 (for Class IV category), both operational prospectively from their respective dates of issuance. 12.15. The new staing pattern for Class IV employees is operational only w.e.f. 11.12.2020. It is trite law that a Government Resolution, a statute, an amendment is not retrospectively applicable unless expressly provided. Hence we reject the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader based on the objection recorded by the Education Oicer that Government Resolution of 2013 i.e. dated 23.10.2013 disqualiies the proposal for approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.3 which is made on 31.08.2014." 5. The decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court is suicient answer to the reason at Sr. No. 8 stated by the Education Oicer for rejecting the proposal. 6. As there was no opportunity given to the management to comply with the deiciencies mentioned at Serial Nos. 1 to 7, and the deiciency cited at Serial No. 8 is covered by the decision in the case of Vikas Shikshan Mandal (supra), we are of the opinion that the impugned order, to the extent that it rejects the proposal without giving an opportunity to the management to cure the deiciencies, is liable to be set aside. 7. The proposal is remitted to the ile of the Education Oicer, and Harish 4 of 6 104-WP-18388-2024.doc the management is directed to comply with the deiciencies cited in the proposal. The Education Oicer to take into consideration the decision in Vikas Shikshan Mandal (supra), which answers the deiciency cited at Serial No. 8. Insofar as the other deiciencies are concerned, the Education Oicer to consider the explanation to be submitted by the management and take a decision afresh. It is made clear that the Education Oicer shall take the decision on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninluenced by the remittance of the proposal by this Court. It is only in the event that the proposal satisies the statutory rules and regulations that necessary approval be granted. The Education Oicer to also take note of the fact that the petitioner claims to have been appointed in the year 2014 and has submitted the proposal after a period of 10 years. Even in the event that approval is granted, the grant- in-aid salary is to be released only from the date of submission of the proposal. 8. The management is directed to comply with the deiciencies at Serial Nos. 1 to 7 within a period of four weeks. After receiving the necessary compliance, the Education Oicer to consider the proposal afresh, and particularly in light of the observations made in the present order, and decide the same expeditiously, and in any event, within a period of four weeks thereafter. In the event the proposal is approved, the Deputy Director of Education to include the name of the petitioner Harish 5 of 6 104-WP-18388-2024.doc in the Shalarth Pranali and issue the Shalarth ID within a period of three weeks thereafter. 9. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Harish 6 of 6