( 1 ) wp4699.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4699 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9634 OF 2026 VIKAS ANNASAHEB NAKADE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS Mr. V.S. Panpatte, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.S.S. Joshi, AGP for the respondent-State. Mr. V.P. Golewar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT & JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. DATE : 27.08.2026 PC :- 01. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5. 02. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to direct respondent No.5 Head Mistress to submit proposal for approval to the post of Junior Clerk in respondent No. 5 – school. By way of Civil Application No. 4699 of 2026, the petitioner is now praying for stay to the proceeding adopted to appoint Junior Clerk in the school and seeks quashment of the advertisement published by the management in daily Lokmat dated 20.08.2026. 2026:BHC-AUG:39941-DB ( 2 ) wp4699.26 03. It is case of the petitioner that he was appointed by Headmistress of respondent No.5 to the post of junior clerk by order dated 04.08.2021. His appointment was for a period from 06.08.2021 till 05.08.2024. It is his further case that after completion of probation period successfully, his service came to be confirmed by the respondents. However, inspite of this position, no proposal is forwarded for approval of his services. On one hand though he is working on the said post, still the Management, without any Authority and without terminating the services of the petitioner, has issued further advertisement on 20.08.2026. Learned Advocate thus submits that said advertisement is illegal. He submits that the person should be given at least 15 days time to respond to the advertisement as per Rule 9(2)(B) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules. In the present case no such time is given. He assails the advertisement on that count as well. Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner needs to be treated as a permanent employee in the school and also proposal needs to be forwarded. He also invites attention to a communication, confirmation order with regard to the petitioner dated 04.03.2026. This is also issued by the Head Mistress of respondent No.5. He thus prays for allowing this petition. ( 3 ) wp4699.26 04. Learned Advocate Mr. Golegaonkar for respondent No.5 invites attention of this Court to the appointment order. He submits that in clause No.4, it was specifically made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to get benefits of a regular employee. By clause No.7, it was stated that the petitioner would be entitled only to Rs. 2000/- honorarium per month. He submits that thereafter again by order dated 18.08.2025 the petitioner was appointed temporarily only for a period from 02.06.2025 till 30.04.2026. The appointment itself was only a stop gap arrangement and no regular appointment was given to the petitioner at any point of time. Since the petitioner was appointed without following due process of law, there was no question of sending proposal for approval of his services. He prays for dismissal of the petition. 05. Learned AGP also opposes this petition. He submits that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was appointed by following due process of law as per Rule 9 of MEPS Rules, 1981. She also prays for dismissal of the petition. 06. At the outset this Court asked the petitioner as to whether his appointment was made by following due process of law by publishing advertisement. Learned Advocate Mr. Panpatte fairly concedes that there ( 4 ) wp4699.26 was no advertisement issued while giving appointment to the petitioner. He further submits that, however, that itself will not take away his right to get regularization in service as he has worked satisfactorily for a period more than three years. It was incumbent on the part of the management to confer permanent status upon petitioner by sending proposal. 07. In the present case the petitioner during the course of arguments, invited attention to letter of confirmation. However, looking to the same, it is clearly seen that the letter dated 04.03.2026 is only a certificate issued by the Headmistress stating that the petitioner’s conduct during the said tenure was excellent. This Court does not find any letter/communication issued by the management at any point of time showing that the petitioner is appointed following due process. Clause No. 10 of the appointment order clearly shows that the appointment of the petitioner is purely on temporary basis. Clause 11 also shows that the appointment was subject to approval by the Education Officer. It is seen that the petitioner thereafter joined on 06.08.2021 by giving joining report pursuant to the appointment order. This conduct of the petitioner shows that he accepted the terms and conditions of appointment order while joining the services knowingly. ( 5 ) wp4699.26 08. Learned Advocate for the petitioner at this stage invites attention to clause “B”, i.e. modality to appoint staff or to recruit staff dated 27.02.2003. Clause “B” shows that a person should be given 15 days time to make application pursuant to an advertisement. This Court finds that, however, the petitioner has not applied pursuant to order dated 20.08.2026. This Court made specific query as to whether the petitioner has applied for the post pursuant to the advertisement. It is told that he has not applied pursuant to the advertisement, as he was under an impression that since he was already working there, there is no need to make an application. He was also under an impression that if he applied pursuant to the advertisement, it would be treated that he is not working there and in order to avoid that he has not applied. Since the petitioner had not applied pursuant to an advertisement, he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved for the reason of not giving 15 days time. 09. Appointment order dated 18.08.2025 also shows that his appointment was only for one year and it was specifically submitted that the appointment will not confer any right to claim regularization. Thus, considering over all position, this Court finds that there is hardly any scope to entertain this petition. ( 6 ) wp4699.26 10. During the course of arguments, learned Advocate for the petitioner invites attention of this Court to section 5(2A) of the Rules, which reads as under :- “5(2A) - Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4), Assistant Teacher (Probationary) shall, on completion of the probation period of three years, be deemed to have been appointed and confirmed as a teacher.” . He pointed out this portion to submit that when a person has worked for a period of 3 years, he is deemed to have been appointed and confirmed as a teacher. So far as section 5 (2A) is concerned, said provision cannot be read in isolation. It will have been taken that a person who is duly appointed in the manner prescribed, which is made clear in section 5(1), which reads as under :- “5. Certain obligations of Management of private schools. (1) The Management shall, as soon as possible fill in, in the manner prescribed, every permanent vacancy in a private school by the appointment of a person duly qualified to fill such vacancy; Provided that unless such vacancy is to be filled in by promotion, the Management shall, before proceeding to fill such vacancy, ascertain from the Educational Inspector, Greater Bombay, the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad or, as the case may be, the Director or the officer designated by the Director in respect of schools imparting technical, vocational, art or special education, whether there is any suitable person available on the event of such person being available, the Management shall appoint that person in such vacancy.” . Thus in view of section 5(1) and proviso, it is clear that sub- section (2A) would be applicable only when a person fulfills criteria ( 7 ) wp4699.26 prescribed under section 5(1). It is further seen that Rule 9 of the MEPS Rules also provide for manner of appointment of staff. 11. Thus, this Court finds that no right is shown by the petitioner vested in him to get regular appointment. No case is made out to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. This Writ Petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. 13. In view of disposal of this Writ Petition, connected Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed off. [JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.] snk/2026/Aug26/wp4699.26