44 WP NO. 14493 OF 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 14493 OF 2023 Faisal Pirmoh Medzada Aliasgar VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others … • Mr. S. B. Parnere, Advocate for the Petitioner • Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 - State • Mr. S. S. Kazi, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 … CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT & JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, the learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 – State and the learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 to 6. 2. The Petitioner possesses the qualifications of B.Com. and B.P.Ed. Respondent No. 4 – Management had published an advertisement in the daily newspaper Punya Nagari dated 01.02.2023 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Shikshan Sevak. Pursuant to the selection process, Respondent No. 6 – Sayyed Aasiya Kalim came to be appointed as Shikshan Sevak. The proposal seeking approval to her appointment is stated to be pending before Respondent No. 3 – Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. Jhs/ 1/4 2026:BHC-AUG:43090-DB 44 WP NO. 14493 OF 2023 3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the advertisement published in Punya Nagari prescribed B.P.Ed. as the requisite qualification for the post. According to the Petitioner, Respondent No. 6 possesses only a B.Ed. degree and does not possess the qualification of B.P.Ed. It is, therefore, contended that the appointment of Respondent No. 6 is contrary to the qualification prescribed in the advertisement and is liable to be declared illegal. 4. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner possesses the requisite qualification of B.P.Ed. and had participated in the selection process. He, therefore, seeks a direction that approval should not be granted to the appointment of Respondent No. 6. A further prayer is made for setting aside the selection proceedings conducted pursuant to the interview dated 15.02.2023 and for consideration of the Petitioner for appointment to the post of Shikshan Sevak. 5. Mr. Kazi, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 to 6, vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that the Petitioner has selectively placed on record only the advertisement published in Punya Nagari. According to him, on the same date, an advertisement was also published in the daily newspaper Lokmat, wherein the requisite qualification was specifically stated to be B.P.Ed./B.Ed. Jhs/ 2/4 44 WP NO. 14493 OF 2023 6. He further submits that Respondent No. 6 secured the highest marks in the selection process and was, therefore, duly appointed. The proposal seeking approval to her appointment has already been forwarded to Respondent No. 3 – Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. He submits that the Petitioner, having participated in the selection process and having failed to secure the highest marks, cannot seek appointment in place of Respondent No. 6. 7. Mr. Kazi further submits that Respondent No. 4 is a minority institution and, therefore, the Petitioner cannot claim, as a matter of right, that he should be appointed as Shikshan Sevak in the said institution. 8. The learned AGP appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the proposal seeking approval to the appointment of Respondent No. 6 is still pending before Respondent No. 3 – Education Officer (Secondary). He submits that, if the Petitioner has any grievance regarding the qualification or appointment of Respondent No. 6, it is open for the Petitioner to raise such objection before the Education Officer and the same shall be considered while deciding the proposal. 9. Considering the aforesaid position and particularly the fact that the proposal for approval is yet to be decided by Respondent Jhs/ 3/4 44 WP NO. 14493 OF 2023 No. 3, we are of the view that the grievance raised by the Petitioner can appropriately be considered by the Education Officer (Secondary) while deciding the said proposal. 10. It shall, therefore, be open for the Petitioner to raise his objections before Respondent No. 3 – Education Officer (Secondary), including the objection with regard to the requisite qualification for the post and the eligibility of Respondent No. 6. 11. Respondent No. 3 – Education Officer (Secondary) shall, if the proposal has not already been decided, consider and decide the proposal seeking approval to the appointment of Respondent No. 6 in accordance with law, after considering the objections raised by the Petitioner, the qualifications prescribed in the relevant advertisements and the applicable legal position, including the Government Resolution dated 13.07.2016. 12. We expect Respondent No. 3 to take an appropriate decision on the proposal as expeditiously as possible. 13. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties, including the eligibility or entitlement of either the Petitioner or Respondent No. 6. 14. With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. [JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.] Jhs/ 4/4