KIRAN DILIP MUTKULE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Mr. T. M. Venjane, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for Respondents/State ... CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI & ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 6th AUGUST 2026 P. C. :-

#1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the communication dated 08.07.2025 issued by respondent. No.4 – Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalna, by which the proposal seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner has been turned down, by relying on the communication of the Respondent No.2 - the Director of Education, Pune dated 28.05.2025, which is based on the Government Resolution dated 04.04.2025 issued by the School Education and Sports Department.

#2. The petitioner has been appointed on the post of Lab Narwade *2* 148 Assistant vide appointment order dated 24.02.2022 in Jijau Dharmarth Davakhana and Shikshan Sanstha, Jalna. The said school accordingly on 19.03.2025 submitted a proposal seeking approval to his appointment. The said proposal has been turned down by the respondent No.4 by impugned order and, therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the order dated 25.11.2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.12798/2025 in the case of Avinash Kamdev Sherkhane Vs. The State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary and others, submits that this Court in case of similarly circumstanced petitioners has set aside the communication by directing the concerned Education Officer to get a fresh proposal from the Education Institution within a period of one month by scrutinizing the same and decide it accordingly within a period of two months thereafter.

#4. The relevant observations of this Court in paragraph Narwade *3* 148 Nos.3 and 5 of said order are as follows : “3. It appears that the respondents are relying on the communication dated 28.05.2025 which is stated to be based on Government Resolution dated 04.04.2025. As per the petitioner, he came to be appointed in view of advertisement that was given on 25.02.2024 and the appointment order was on the clear sanctioned post of Lab Assistant. He was given an appointment order on 10.03.2024 and he resume his duty on 11.03.2024. In order to show that there was a clear vacancy, the petitioner has supplied the copy of Sanch Manyata of the year 2018-2019 as well as 2023-2024. We are not aware as to whether along with the proposal that was sent by the Educational Institution these Sanch Manyata was given or not in respect of the year 2023-2024. Impugned communication dated 26.06.2025 states that the document that was annexed was of Sanch Manyata 2018-2019. It is also not clear as to whether along with the proposal, the document regarding permission for filling up the post of Lab Assistant was taken prior to 25.02.2024 or not by the Educational Institution. The Educational Institution is not party before this Court. Now the question would be for appointment that was made prior to Government Resolution dated 04.04.2025 whether the said Government Resolution can be made applicable. In other words, whether Government Resolution dated 04.04.2025 can be made applicable retrospectively is a question. If all the documents necessary for seeking approval were filed then it ought to have been then considered. Certainly, we are of the opinion that a Government 5. Resolution cannot be acted retrospectively unless there is specific stipulation for the same and if the appointment is as per the procedure and against a clear vacancy then it should be considered. We therefore, set aside the order dated 26.06.2025 and direct the respondent No. 4 to get a fresh proposal from the Educational Institution within a period of one month, scrutinize it and decide within further two months.”

#5. In the light of the aforesaid observations of this Court, we set aside the impugned communication dated

08.07.2025 and direct Respondent No.4 – Education Officer to get a fresh proposal from concerned Education Narwade *4* 148 Institutions within a period of four (4) weeks and scrutinize the same and decide them accordingly within a period of two (2) weeks thereafter. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) Narwade