16.WP.3440.2026.doc Ajay IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3440 OF 2026 Rohini Irgonda Patil .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Kunal Uttam Shirgire, Advocate i/by Mr. Vikas R. Kolekar and Satvashil Gaikwad for Petitioner.  Mr. Vikas M. Mali, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State. ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV & NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : JULY 31, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Shirgire, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. Mali, learned AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of her proposal by communication dated 20.12.2025 on the ground that there were deficiencies requiring compliance. The said rejection is appended at Exhibit 'N' - page 49 of the Petition. Upon perusal thereof, it is prima facie seen that certain queries have been raised. We have gone through the same. There is no dispute or ambiguity regarding the fact that Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on a full-time post in the School run by Respondent No.4 pursuant to the due process of selection and recruitment. 1 of 4 16.WP.3440.2026.doc 3. Petitioner came to be appointed on 09.05.2012. Documentary evidence appended to the Petition prima facie shows the qualification of the Petitioner at Exhibit 'A' - page No.20. The certificate issued by the School dated 29.08.2022, inter alia, certifies the fact that Petitioner was appointed on 15.06.2012. The said certificate was issued by the Headmaster and is appended at page No.22. The advertisement is appended at Exhibit 'B' - page No. 23. The selection list at Exhibit 'C' - page Nos.24 and 25, the appointment letter at Exhibit 'D' - page No.28, followed by the Resolution of the Trust appointing the Petitioner at Exhibit 'F' - page No. 29. The attendance record of Petitioner is appended from page page No.30 onwards and is contained in Exhibit 'G' (collectively). 4. According to the Petitioner, the institution has forwarded the proposal, a copy of which is appended at Exhibit 'I' - page No.43. It prima facie states that for processing the proposal, the checklist contained at Exhibit 'H' - page No.41 dated 19.08.2022 had been duly complied with and the proposal was accordingly submitted. However, insofar as the consideration of the said proposal is concerned, the proposal came to be rejected by the impugned communication dated 26.12.2025. There are 15 alleged conditions/deficiencies mentioned in the said rejection communication. 5. What we find is that most of the alleged deficiencies are 2 of 4 16.WP.3440.2026.doc innocuous in nature. The only requirement which the Petitioner may have to fulfill in view of her appointment in the year 2012 is to acquire the qualification of passing the TET Examination. The Supreme Court in the case of Anjuman Ishaat E Taleem Trust Vs. State of Maharashtra1 has now extended the time to acquire the said qualification up to 30th August 2028. 6. Hence, we direct the Petitioner to ensure that she acquires the said qualification, failing which whatever benefit is received by her shall stand reverted, subject to the said condition being extended or otherwise. The rest of the deficiencies mentioned in the rejection communication are prima facie unacceptable and cannot be countenanced. The requirements contained in the checklist at Exhibit 'H' at page No.41 have already been complied with by the School, copies of which are appended to the Petition. 7. The checklist includes details regarding the School registration, NOC, certificate of employment, advertisement, selection list, appointment order, resolution of the trust, etc. All of these documents have been discussed hereinabove and we have perused the same. Some of the deficiencies, such as the requirement to produce the timetable of the school, Form No.26, details of salary, last salary slip, registration of the school, seniority list, cannot be countenanced in the rejection communication, particularly when the same have 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912 3 of 4 16.WP.3440.2026.doc already been produced. 8. Prima facie we find that there is no ambiguity or dispute or issue relating to Petitioner's appointment in the year 2012. Once that is the position, we agree with the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and in that view of the matter, Writ Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c) which read thus:- "(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased issue Writ of Mandamus / certiorari or any other Writ thereby quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the Respondent No. 3 thereby rejected the sanction proposal dated 29/08/2025 and allow the said proposal. (c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased issue Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ thereby direct to the Respondent No. 3 after decide the proposal of the petitioner to submit the Proposal for Shalarth ID of the Petitioner for the post of Asst. Teacher with the Respondent No. 2 and the Respondent No. 2 shall consider expeditiously." 9. We direct the concerned Competent Authority to issue the approval order in favour of the Petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a server copy of this order. We also direct the concerned Authority to issue a Shalarth ID within a period of one week thereafter, upon computation of Petitioner's emoluments in accordance with law. 10. Writ Petition stands allowed in the above terms. [ NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. ] [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 4 of 4 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.07.31 17:56:04 +0530