28-WP-2968-2023.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2968 OF 2023 Aparna Ankush Bhandalkar ...Petitioner Versus State Of Maharashtra Thr. The Honorable Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents _______ Mr. Nikhil Waje for Petitioner. Mr. A. R. Deolekar, AGP for Respondent-State. _______ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE: 28th SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C. 1. By this Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the order dated 9th January 2023 passed by the Respondent No. 2, Education Officer (Secondary), by which the proposal for approval of the Petitioner as a Laboratory Assistant in the Respondent No. 4 Institution was rejected. 2. The Petitioner was appointed to the post of Laboratory Assistant at the Respondent No.4 Institution on 15th June 2015. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the Education Officer and the Deputy Director of Education, respectively, of the Respondent No.1-State. 3. Several employees in the posts of Junior Clerk, Senior Clerk, Laboratory Assistant, Peon, etc., are stated to have retired from the Institution during the Ajit Pathrikar AJIT RAMESH PATHRIKAR Digitally signed by AJIT RAMESH PATHRIKAR Date: 2026.10.05 15:10:16 +0530 28-WP-2968-2023.DOC period 2010-2014. The School run by the Institution had more than 2900 students during the relevant period. Considering the staffing requirements, including a Laboratory Assistant, for the school, the management sent a proposal to Respondent No. 2, the Education Officer, seeking permission to publish an advertisement inviting suitable candidates to fill the vacant post. The Education Officer did not reply, and the school remained understaffed. In the interest of the students studying in the school, the management published an advertisement dated 6th June 2015 in the Dainik Lokmat Newspaper inviting eligible candidates to submit applications for recruitment. The advertisement also invited applications for two posts of Laboratory Assistant. 4. Interviews were conducted, and after following due process of law, the Petitioner was selected for the post of Laboratory Assistant at the said school. The Respondent No.4 passed a resolution in its executive council appointing the Petitioner to the said post. Accordingly, the Petitioner was issued an appointment letter and joined the school as a Laboratory Assistant with effect from 15th June 2015. After completing the probation period, his services were confirmed, and he continues to work in the school to date. The Respondent No.4 Institution sought approval of the Respondent No.2 as per procedure vide a letter dated 31st December 2018 and pursued the same repeatedly. However, apart from assurances that approval would be granted to the Petitioner’s appointment, no letter of approval was forthcoming. Ultimately, by order dated 9th January 2023, the Respondent No.2 rejected the proposal for approval on various grounds. It is this Ajit Pathrikar 28-WP-2968-2023.DOC order refusing to grant approval to the Petitioner’s appointment that is assailed in the present petition. 5. Heard Mr. Nikhil Waje, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. A. R. Deolekar, learned AGP for the Respondent-State. 6. Mr. Waje submitted that the order refusing approval is without any basis. The Petitioner has worked at the school for more than a decade and was appointed to a vacant post as per the sanch manyata for the year 2023-2024. The post was vacant due to the earlier employee's retirement, and the reasons given by the Education Officer for rejecting approval of his appointment are baseless. He thus submitted that the petition be allowed and that the Respondent be directed to grant approval for his appointment. 7. Mr. Deolekar brought to our attention the averments made by Mr. Nilesh Dhanapune, In-Charge Deputy Education Officer, Secondary, Pune, in the affidavit in reply dated 18th October 2024, filed by him on behalf of Respondent No.2. According to Mr. Deolekar, no documentary evidence was submitted by the Institution with the proposal to indicate a vacancy in the said post. He further submitted that the 100 Point Model Roster was not verified with the office of the Commissioner, Backward Class Cell, Pune, prior to the Petitioner’s recruitment. Further, no permission was obtained from the Education Officer before publishing the advertisement to recruit the Petitioner and others. Moreover, the seniority list was not provided with the proposal. Mr. Deolekar submitted that the Petitioner’s appointment to the post is illegal, as the State Government had banned recruitment to non-teaching posts in private schools by its resolution dated 2nd Ajit Pathrikar 28-WP-2968-2023.DOC May 2012. In these circumstances, Mr. Deolekar challenged the impugned order and prayed that the petition be rejected. 8. An affidavit-in-rejoinder has been filed by the Petitioner. It is contended that the post of Laboratory Assistant fell vacant on the retirement of Shri Vishnu Krishna Karanje, an erstwhile employee of the school. His appointment to the said post was approved. He thus submits that the reasons for refusal are incorrect and that the rejection order was passed without application of mind. 9. Having heard both sides and perused the documents on record, it is evident that the Respondent No.4 Institution sought the availability of surplus candidates to fill the vacancy of Laboratory Assistant and other posts. The State failed to nominate any surplus candidates. Furthermore, despite seeking permission to advertise the said posts, the State failed either to grant permission or to refuse it. Despite repeated requests from the Institution, the State remained inactive. Hence, the Respondent No.4 Institution proceeded to issue an advertisement and appoint the Petitioner and others to their respective posts after the due process of law. We do not find any fault with the management, as it cannot be expected to leave posts vacant for as long as the State decides to take cognizance of its request. We find it logical for the management to presume the unavailability of surplus candidates in view of the State’s failure and neglect to nominate them. Hence, no blame can be foisted on the management for proceeding with the recruitment process. 10. It is also evident from the documents on record that the Petitioner was appointed to a post that had fallen vacant on the retirement of the erstwhile Laboratory Assistant, namely Vishnu Krishnaji Karanje, who retired on 31st May Ajit Pathrikar 28-WP-2968-2023.DOC 2012. The post was sanctioned, and approval for his appointment was accorded. The verified roster of the State, as placed on record by the Petitioner, also indicates a total of five posts, two of which are in the category of Laboratory Assistants. Further, the documents on record indicate that the Respondent No.4 Institution had sent multiple applications with requests to the Divisional Commissioner, Backward Class Cell, Pune, to verify and report the roster of non-teaching staff of the said school. However, the Divisional Commissioner failed to give any reply to the same. In these circumstances, the reasons given in the rejection order impugned herein are not substantiated. 11. Since the Petitioner was appointed to a post created by the retirement of the former employee, no additional demand was placed on the Government's finance department. If there were any objections to the recruitment process, the State Government and the concerned departments ought to have acted promptly to nominate surplus candidates for the vacancy. The Government departments remained silent and were willing to sacrifice the interests of the students at the educational institution due to a lack of adequate staff. The time has long passed when we could expect the State Government to act promptly and ensure that all stakeholders in the recruitment mechanism work in tandem. 12. The Petitioner has been regularly employed at the school since 6th June 2015. There is no blemish on his performance. The Respondent institution has timely sent requests for approval, but no reply has been received. The post could not have been left vacant for an indefinite period. We find no lapse in the Petitioner’s appointment to the said post. Page 5 of 6 Ajit Pathrikar 28-WP-2968-2023.DOC 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the Impugned rejection order was passed without any due application of mind. Consequently, the order stands quashed and set aside. 14. No costs. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Ajit Pathrikar