30 wp 2389-26.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2389 OF 2026 Avantika Ashok Jadhav and Others. ...Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others. ...Respondents. —————— Mr. Gajraj A. Mali for the Petitioner. Mr. A. A. Alaspurkar, AGP for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh & Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ. Date : September 11, 2026. P. C. : 1. By the present petition, challenge is to the order dated 30th April 2026 by which the Education Officer, relying upon Government Resolution dated 10th June 2005 has observed that the Petitioner No.1 is required to be appointed on the post of Shikshan Sevak and returned the proposal for grant of approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.1 on the post of Assistant Teacher. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Petitioner No.1 was duly qualified for being appointed to the post of laboratory assistant and after following due process, came to be appointed as laboratory assistant on 16th March 2020. Approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.1 was granted on 4th October 2024 with effect from 16th March 2020. Petitioner No.1 worked on the post of laboratory assistant Patil-SR 1 of 4 2026:BHC-KOL:8886-DB 30 wp 2389-26.doc from 16th March 2020 till 15th March 2023 on honorarium basis and attended the status of permanent laboratory assistant. In the year 2023, due to retirement, one post of assistant teacher fell vacant in Petitioner No.2-school and the Petitioner No.1 having requisite qualification was promoted to the post of assistant teacher in Petitioner No.2-school. Upon the proposal submitted for approval, the impugned order came to be passed. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the Education Officer has relied upon Government Resolution dated 10th June 2005 in order to return the proposal on the ground that appointment is required to be firstly on the post of Shikshan Sevak on honorarium basis and secondly on the basis of Government Resolution dated 25th March 2026 prohibiting the promotion from non teaching staff to teaching staff. He submits that insofar as the Government Resolution dated 10th June 2005 is concerned, the same is already held to be discriminatory by this Court in Suhas Rangraoji More v. State of Maharashtra1. He submits that insofar as Government Resolution dated 25th March 2026 is concerned, as the Petitioner is promoted in the year 2023, the subsequent Government Resolution will not have any application in the present case. 1 WP 7706 of 2022 (Nagpur Bench) dtd. 21-12-2023. Patil-SR 2 of 4 30 wp 2389-26.doc 4. The proposal seeking grant of approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.1 came to be rejected by relying upon Government Resolutions dated 25th March 2026 and 10th June 2005. Insofar as the Government Resolution dated 10th June 2005 is concerned, the same was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Suhas Rangraoji More v. State of Maharashtra (supra) wherein this Court has noted that Clause 8 of the Government Resolution dated 10th June 2005 which stipulated the promotion of non teaching staff as Shikshan Sevak on payment of honorarium is arbitrary and discriminatory and had directed the Petitioner therein to be appointed as assistant teacher with the prescribed pay scale at par with the pay scale of other similarly placed promotees. The said decision of this Court squarely applies to the facts of the present case and therefore rejection by the Education Officer on the basis of Government Resolution dated 10th June 2005 does not survive. 5. Insofar as the Government Resolution dated 25th March 2026 is concerned, the same places an embargo on promotion from non teaching post to teaching post. As it is not disputed that the appointment of Petitioner No.1 was prior to the issuance of Government Resolution dated 25th March 2026, the said GR will not have retrospective application. Patil-SR 3 of 4 30 wp 2389-26.doc 6. In the light of above, the impugned order dated 30th April 2026 is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent No.3 has rejected the proposal by taking into consideration the above discussed GRs. The proposal is, therefore, remitted to the file of Education Officer, to be considered afresh by considering whether the appointment of Petitioner No.1 is valid and in accordance with law. As Government Resolutions dated 25th March 2026 and 10th June 2005 do not apply to the case of Petitioner No.1, the Education Officer is directed not to take into consideration the said GRs. The proposal to be decided by the Education Officer expeditiously and in any event within a period of three weeks from today. 7. The petition is allowed in the above terms. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Patil-SR 4 of 4