19 WP 7700 OF 2021 F.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7700 OF 2021 Shri Vilas Bhaskar Sonawane and Anr. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Anr. ...Respondents _______ Mr. Vinayak R. Kumbhar and Mr. Rajendra B. Khaire i/b. Ms. Ashwini N. Bandiwadekar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. A.C. Bhadang, AGP for Respondent – State. Mr. Shrishail Sakhare, Advocate for Respondent No.2. _______ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE: 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. 1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners challenge the impugned order dated 16th February, 2018, issued by the Respondent No.2, refusing approval to the appointment of the Petitioner No. 1 as Assistant Teacher in partly aided Minority Primary School of the Petitioner No.2 Institution. The Petitioner prays that the impugned order dated 16.2.2018 [EXHIBIT-F] issued by the Respondent No. 2 be quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 2 be directed to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner No. 1 as Assistant Teacher in the partially aided [20% aided] Primary Rajeshri Aher RAJESHRI PRAKASH AHER Digitally signed by RAJESHRI PRAKASH AHER Date: 2026.10.09 15:18:15 +0530 19 WP 7700 OF 2021 F.DOC School of the Petitioner No. 2 Institution w.e.f. 8.1.2018, and for release of the grant-in-aid for payment of monthly salary to the Petitioner No. 1 from the said date, along with arrears. 2. The facts, which lie in a narrow compass, are Petitioner No. 1 is an Assistant Teacher who has been employed by Petitioner No. 2, which is a Linguistic Minority Institution (Hindi). It is running a Government-recognized primary school in the name of Shri Mounibaba Rampati Hindi Primary School at Veer Sawarkar Nagar, Vangni (West), Taluka - Ambernath, District - Thane. It is the case of the Petitioners that the said school was started on a 'permanent no-grant' basis from the year 2004. In the year 2009, it became an 'unaided school'. In the year 2014, the school was sanctioned 20% grant-in-aid with effect from June 2012. On 18th November, 2013, one Dipak Devidas Dewadkar (M.A., B.Ed.) was appointed as a Graduate Teacher in the said Primary School on an unaided basis. Respondent No. 2 - Education Officer granted approval to the said appointment on an unaided basis. When the school started receiving 20% grant-in-aid, approval was granted to all the Teachers, including Shri Dewadkar, by Respondent No. 2 on a partially aided basis. 3. On 22nd December, 2016, the Graduate Teacher, Mr. Dewadkar, submitted a letter of resignation from the post of Graduate Teacher. The said resignation was accepted by the Management in its meeting held on 31st January, 2017. Since the acceptance of the said resignation, Mr. Dewadkar has not claimed any right over the post. Rajeshri Aher 19 WP 7700 OF 2021 F.DOC 4. On 27th December, 2017, Respondent No. 2 Management published an advertisement in a newspaper inviting applications for an interview to fill the vacancy of Graduate Teacher created by the resignation of Mr. Dipak Devidas Dewadkar. Pursuant to the said advertisement, on 31st December, 2017, four candidates, including Petitioner No. 1, appeared for the interview. It is contended that Petitioner No. 1 was born on 1st June, 1982, he belongs to the Open Category, and possessed the qualifications of M.A. and B.Ed., hence, he was eligible for appointment to the said post. Accordingly, on 31st December, 2017, Petitioner No. 1 came to be selected for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher on merits. Accordingly, on 2nd January, 2018, an appointment order was issued to Petitioner No. 1 on the pay scale with effect from 8th January, 2018, Petitioner No. 1 accordingly joined the school on 8th January, 2018. 5. On 29th January, 2018, the Headmistress of the School submitted a proposal to Respondent No. 2 seeking approval to the appointment of Petitioner No. 1. However, by an order dated 16th February, 2018, Respondent No. 2 refused to grant approval to the appointment of Petitioner No. 1 on the ground of three deficiencies referred to in the said order. Primarily, the objection raised against Petitioner No. 1 was in regard to the resignation of Mr. Dipak Devidas Dewadkar, which was stated to be not clear and, hence, a doubt was raised regarding the vacancy that had arisen. The other reason being the Petitioner's appointment was stated to be made during the academic year 2017-18, when the post was partly aided. For that academic year, the post was not maintained as an 'approved post' Rajeshri Aher 19 WP 7700 OF 2021 F.DOC under the staffing pattern and, for such reason, approval could not be granted. According to the Petitioner, the said reason set out by the Education Officer (Primary)/Respondent No. 2 was not acceptable and, accordingly, on 13th March, 2018, Petitioner No. 2, as well as the Headmistress of the School, submitted a detailed explanation to Respondent No. 2 and pointed out how all the three deficiencies mentioned in the aforesaid order were unsustainable. Also, on behalf of Petitioner No. 2, a notarized undertaking was submitted, requesting that approval be granted to Petitioner No. 1. However, the said request was not considered and, in the circumstances, the Petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. 6. Affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2 by Dr. Bhausaheb Karekar, Education Officer (Primary), Z.P., Thane, in which it has been accepted that the School Management, by its letter dated 13th March, 2018, submitted an undertaking of the Secretary of the Management on a Stamp Paper of Rs. 100/- stating that Mr. Dewadkar had tendered his resignation and thereafter had not returned to the school, and that the Management was ready to take responsibility if any court case arose after the approval was granted. The relevant contents of the affidavit are required to be noted, which read thus: “2. I say that, the respondent no.2 has received the proposal from the Headmistress of school on 29/01/2018 for approval to the appointment of petitioner no.1 as asst. teacher. I say that from the documents submitted by the school alongwith said proposal it is found that the petitioner no.1 is appointed as asst teacher on the post which has become vacant due to the resignation of one asst. teacher at Shri. Dipak Dewadkar on 31/01/2017. I say that, the said resignation is on simple paper and not Notary stamp paper. It is necessary to verify the same, Rajeshri Aher 19 WP 7700 OF 2021 F.DOC otherwise there is possibility of arising court matter. I say that the appointment of petitioner no. l is being made in the year 2017-18 but, the newly approval cant not be given on partly aided basis. I further say that, it is also necessary to verify that whether the said post is sanctioned or not in the Sanch Manyata of the year 2016- 17 and 2017-18. Therefore, on these defect, the approval can not be given to the appointment of petitioner no.1 as asst. teacher. 3. I say that thereafter, the school management by its vide letter dated 13/03/2018 submitted undertaking of secretary of management on 100/- rupees stamp paper that said Dewadkar has given resignation and thereafter, he did not turn to the school. Hence, it is not possible to submit the notarized resignation of said Dewadkar. Therefore, the management is ready to take responsibility, if any court matter is arose. I say that the respondent no.2 has no power to review his own order.” 7. On the aforesaid premise, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the record. We find substance in the contentions as urged on behalf of the Petitioners, more particularly, on the fact that, at the relevant time, there was a clear vacancy in lieu of the Graduate Teacher, Mr. Dipak Devidas Dewadkar (M.A., B.Ed.), having submitted his resignation and the same being accepted by the management. Thus, a vacancy being created on account of his resignation, Petitioner No. 2 / Management, adopted the appropriate procedure by issuing an advertisement and considering eligible candidates. Interviews of such candidates were also conducted and, thereafter, upon the eligibility criteria being satisfied, an appointment was granted in favour of the Petitioner. 8. In these circumstances, when approval was sought, part grant-in-aid as granted by the Zilla Parishad to the Petitioner No. 2–School was subsisting. Page 5 of 7 Rajeshri Aher 19 WP 7700 OF 2021 F.DOC Also, by the letter dated 13th March, 2018, issued by Petitioner No. 2– Management, clarification was given in regard to the vacancy. 9. We find that there is no requirement in law that the resignation duly submitted by Mr. Dipak Devidas Dewadkar (M.A., B.Ed.) should be on a Stamp Paper. It is also clear that the post was vacant, hence the impugned communication dated 16th February, 2018, refusing the approval, in our opinion, on any of the reasons as set out, cannot be sustained. This is more particularly, as the Management–Petitioner No. 2 has taken upon itself the responsibility with regard to the resignation which was being doubted. There is no contrary material or any other reason as to why the approval ought not to be granted, if considered in accordance with the requirements of law. 10. At this stage, we are informed by Mr. Sakhare, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, that the Petitioner is yet to clear the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) and that in pursuance of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust V. State of Maharashtra1, Petitioner No. 1 shall clear the TET, as per the directions of the Supreme Court, failing which the consequences of termination would be required to be faced by Petitioner No. 1. 11. In such circumstances, it was, necessary for Respondent No. 2 to grant approval to the appointment of Petitioner No. 1. 12. In this view of the matter, we are of the clear opinion that the petition would be required to be allowed. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (b), which reads thus: 1 2025 INSC 1063 Rajeshri Aher 19 WP 7700 OF 2021 F.DOC ‘b] By a suitable writ, order or directions, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 16.2.2018 [EXHIBIT-F] issued by the Respondent No. 2, and accordingly the Respondent No. 2 may be directed to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner No. 1 as Assistant Teacher in the partially aided [20%] Primary School of the Petitioner No. 2 Institution w.e.f. 8.1.2018, and to release grant-in-aid for payment of monthly salary to the Petitioner No. 1 from the said date, alongwith arrears.’ 13. Respondents to take necessary steps within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 14. Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Rajeshri Aher