32-WP-3960-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3960 OF 2026 Sanjay Basawannappa Uppin ...Petitioner. Versus The State Of Maharashtra Thr. The Secretary, School Education And Sports Department And Others ...Respondents. —————— Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioner. Mr. P. V. Nelson Rajan, AGP for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh & Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ. Date : August 28, 2026. P. C. : 1. In the present petition the challenge is to the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by respondent No. 5, the Education Oicer, whereby the proposal submitted by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 seeking individual approval for the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Junior Clerk at the respondent No. 7 Secondary School was rejected on the ground of the communication dated 28.05.2025. 2. Respondent No. 6 is a Minority Institution and on 30.06.2022, a post of Junior Clerk became vacant, pursuant to which an advertisement was issued on 15.03.2023 and the petitioner came to be appointed on 20.06.2023, with efect from 15.07.2023. On 24.07.2023, Harish 1 of 4 HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Digitally signed by HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Date: 2026.08.29 18:31:56 +0530 32-WP-3960-2026.doc the proposal was submitted, which came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 relying on the communication issued on 28.05.2025. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, irstly, the communication of 28.05.2025 will not apply to a minority institution, which is a well-settled and reiterated position of law relying upon the decision of the Nagpur Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 8174 of 2025. He would further submit that the appointment of the petitioner was on 20.06.2023 by reason of a post becoming vacant, and the communication in question is a subsequent communication. 4. Per contra, learned AGP would support the impugned order and submits that by reason of the communication of 28.05.2025, the order has been rightly passed. 5. The only reason for rejection of the petitioner’s approval is the communication dated 28.05.2025 issued by the Director of Education. The issue regarding the applicability of the said communication in case of minority institutions was considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in Writ Petition No. 8174 of 2025. The Hon’ble Division Bench noted that the controversy as regards the directive dated 28.05.2025 to minority institutions is misconceived as it is squarely covered by the pronouncement of this Court in the case of Canossa Society and Another Vs. Commissioner, Social Welfare, Harish 2 of 4 32-WP-3960-2026.doc Directorate, Government of Maharashtra and Others [2014 SCC OnLine Bom 536], where this Court held that in the case of minority institutions exercising their right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, the consequence of the impugned order impedes the valid exercise of the right by the minority institution to recruit non-teaching staf. It was further held that it is impermissible to resort to such an action of imposing a condition of absorption of surplus staf on the petitioner- institution as it directly infringes the fundamental right conferred on minority institutions to administer and establish their educational institutions. The Hon’ble Division Bench quashed and set aside the communication dated 28.05.2025 and directed the grant of approval in that case. 6. Considering that the decision was rendered on 23.02.2026 and impugned order in the present case was passed on 30.06.2025, the Education Oicer would not have the beneit of the order, which is subsequent to the passing of the impugned order. 7. Considering the decision dated 23.02.2026, the order of 30.06.2025 is clearly unsustainable and is hereby quashed and set aside. 8. The proposal is remitted to the ile of the Education Oicer to consider the same afresh in light of the decision dated 23.02.2026 passed in Writ Petition No. 8174 of 2025. Apart from the directives dated 28.05.2025, if there are no other deiciencies which would come Harish 3 of 4 32-WP-3960-2026.doc in the way of the grant of approval to the petitioner, it is expected that the Education Oicer would grant the approval within a period of three weeks from today. 9. The petition is allowed in the above terms. 10. In case approval is granted, the respondent No. 4 is to include the name of the petitioner in the Shalarth Pranali and issue Shalarth ID within a period of two weeks thereafter, and the grant-in-aid salary to be released within a period of four weeks thereafter. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Harish 4 of 4