AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD926 WRIT PETITION NO.13727 OF 2025 Gulab Ramsing Patil v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

926-WP-13727-25 (+1).odt {1}IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD926 WRIT PETITION NO.13727 OF 2025Gulab Ramsing Patil,VersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through its Principal Secretary, Sports and Education Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai And Others...…927 WRIT PETITION NO.13728 OF 20251. Yograj Pandurang Patil2. Kailas Shamraon PatilVersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through its Principal Secretary, Sports and Education Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai And OthersWITHCIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.34614 OF 2025 IN WP13728 OF 2025Vitthal Tulshiram BadgujarVersusYograj Pandurang Patil And Others......Mr. Jitendra V. Patil, Advocate for Petitioners in both WPsMr. R.S. Wani, APP for Respondents No.1 to 4 in both WPsMr. Anand Patil (Indrale), Advocate for Intervener in WP/13728/2025......CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ. DATED: 19 NOVEMBER, 2025ORDER [Per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.] :-1.Both the writ petitions impugn the communication dated10.09.2025 issued by Respondent No. 4 for cancellation of the approvalorder granted in favour of the petitioners. 926-WP-13727-25 (+1).odt {2}2.Petitioners have been employed with the schools run byrespondent No. 5 since 1991 and 1992 respectively. The presentmanagement is running five schools in Jalgaon District, and therefore, acommon seniority list of all employees has been maintained for allposts. As the posts of permanent Headmasters were vacant for a longperiod, promotion orders were issued in favour of the petitioners byrespondent No. 5, and the petitioners came to be appointed aspermanent Headmasters in their respective schools. Resolutions werealso passed by the Management to that effect on 22.05.2024 and18.06.2023. Accordingly, promotion orders were issued by theManagement on 01.07.2023 and 01.06.2024, and the proposals seekingapproval to the services of the present petitioners as permanentHeadmasters were forwarded to respondent No. 4 on 01.01.2025. Asthe proposals were not finally decided and approval was not granted,the petitioners approached this Court, pending the approval proposals,by filing Writ Petition No. 4429 of 2025 and Writ Petition No. 4449 of2025, seeking directions to respondent No. 4 to decide the proposalsand grant approval within a period of four weeks. Accordingly, the writpetitions were disposed of by issuing directions to respondent No. 4 todecide the proposals of the petitioners. In view of the orders passed bythis Court, respondent No. 4 granted approval to the 926-WP-13727-25 (+1).odt {3}appointment/promotion of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 13728 of2025 as permanent Headmasters, by orders dated 31.05.2025 and30.05.2025.3.The petitioners submit that on 10.09.2025, one GopalGhanshyam Chaudhary filed a complaint with respondent No. 4 seekingcancellation of the approvals granted to the petitioners. In view of thecomplaint dated 10.09.2025 filed by Gopal Ghanshyam Chaudhary,respondent No. 4 – Education Officer forwarded the proposal forcancellation of the approvals granted to the petitioners for the posts ofpermanent Headmasters to the office of respondent No. 34.The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners argued thatRespondent Gopal Ghanshyam Chaudhary, who is a politician and athird party, submitted a one-line representation/complaint toRespondent No. 4 on 10.09.2025 seeking cancellation of the approvalorders granted in favour of the petitioners. He argued that, in light ofthe Government Resolution dated 18.02.2025, no third-partycomplaints can be entertained against the approval orders granted infavour of the petitioners. He further submitted that the complaint ismerely a one-sentence application stating that the names of the threepersons appointed as Headmasters and granted approval should becancelled. There is absolutely no reason mentioned in the said 926-WP-13727-25 (+1).odt {4}application. The learned advocate for the petitioners thus argued thatrespondent No. 4, in view of the Government Resolution dated18.02.2025, ought not to have considered the complaint filed by a thirdperson and ought not to have forwarded the proposal to respondent No.3. According to the learned advocate, forwarding the complaint alongwith the impugned communication dated 10.09.2025 amounts torespondent No. 4 taking cognizance of the complaint, and therefore, inlight of the Government Resolution dated 18.02.2025, the impugnedcommunication is bad in law and liable to be set aside5.When the matter was called out, learned advocate Mr. AnandPatil Indrale appeared on behalf of Vitthal Tulsiram Badgujar and statedthat he has filed Civil Application (Stamp) No. 34164 of 2025 in WritPetition No. 13728 of 2025 seeking intervention, as he is aggrieved bythe appointment of the petitioners as permanent Headmasters. Heargued that the impugned communication dated 10.09.2025 is not onlywith reference to the complaint filed by respondent Gopal GhanashyamChaudhary, but also with reference to the complaint filed by the presentintervener on 03.07.2025. He argued that the applicant cannot betreated as a third party, as he was an employee of respondent No. 5, andhe is aggrieved by the approval granted to the petitioners as permanentHeadmasters on 01.07.2023 and 01.06.2024. He thus prayed fordismissal of the present petitions. 926-WP-13727-25 (+1).odt {5}6The learned AGP appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4 arguedthat the impugned communication dated 10 September 2025 cannot besaid to be an order or any decision. Reading of the said communicationsimpliciter shows that respondent No. 4 has merely forwarded thecomplaints to the office of respondent No. 3 for appropriate action.According to the learned AGP, the petitions are premature and deserveto be dismissed.7.We have heard all the parties, including the intervener. It is anadmitted position that the petitioners were appointed as permanentHeadmasters after approval was granted by respondent No. 4.Theapprovals have been granted on 01.07.2023 and 01.06.2024 to therespective petitioners. It is further admitted position that the approvalorders and the appointment of the petitioners as permanentHeadmasters have not been challenged by any party till date. Thus, theapprovals as on today have attained finality. Perusal of GovernmentResolution dated 18.02.2025 clearly mentions that no cognizance of anycomplaint received from third person who is not connected with theinstitution and that the subject matter should be taken intoconsideration by the authorities in accordance with the judgment andorder dated 23.10.2024 passed in Writ Petition No. 2492 of 2024 by thePrincipal Seat at Bombay. Considering the aforesaid Resolution, we 926-WP-13727-25 (+1).odt {6}agree with the submissions of the petitioners’ advocate that respondentNo. 4 ought not to have entertained the complaints filed by respondentGopal Ghanshyam Chaudhari and by the intervener. Issuing theimpugned communication dated 10.09.2025, making reference to bothcomplainants and forwarding it to the office of respondent No. 3, itselfamounts to taking cognizance of the complaints and violates thedirections issued by the State Government under its GovernmentResolution dated 18.02.2025. Respondent Gopal Ghanshyam Chaudhariis mentioned as ex-Zilla Parishad member of Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon,and perusal of his complaint at Exhibit ‘F’ does not show how he hasany interest in the petitioners being appointed as Headmasters of theschools run by respondent No. 5-Society. Thus, it cannot be disputedthat he is a third person. As far as the complaint of the intervener isconcerned, the impugned communication itself mentions that, as on10.09.2025, he is a retired employee of respondent No. 5. Therefore, ifas on that date he was not in service, he cannot be said to be a personhaving any interest in the subject matter or in the affairs of respondentNo. 5 as on 10.09.2025. Moreover, the argument of the learnedadvocate for the intervener is that he is aggrieved by the appointment ofthe petitioners as Headmasters for a specific period. In our consideredview, the remedy for the intervener in such a situation is not by way offiling any complaint with the office of respondent No. 4. In case the 926-WP-13727-25 (+1).odt {7}intervener is aggrieved, he may adopt appropriate legal remediesavailable to him in law. We also do not agree with the submissions madeby the learned AGP that the impugned communication dated10.09.2025 is merely a forwarding letter and that no cause of actioncan be said to have arisen for the petitioners to approach this Court onthe basis of the said communication. Perusal of the impugnedcommunication clearly demonstrates that respondent No. 4, whileaddressing the said communication to respondent No. 3, has mentionedthe subject as ‘Headmasters—cancellation of approval. Furthermore, inthe reference, both complaints have been taken into consideration andforwarded. In the said communication, respondent No. 4 has clearlystated; ‘submitted for appropriate action’. Thereafter, it can be observedthat a copy of the said communication dated 10.09.2025 has beenforwarded to respondent Gopal Ghanshyam Chaudhari, who is a thirdperson, as well as to the intervener and to the Superintendent, PensionDepartment. Respondent No. 4, on the contrary, should to have refusedto accept any complaint from a third person or should have dismissedthe said complaint by relying upon the Government Resolution dated18.09.2025. However, respondent No. 4 has proceeded to takecognizance of the complaints and issued the impugned communication,which amounts to taking cognizance and forwarding the same fornecessary action. In our considered view, this cannot be permitted and 926-WP-13727-25 (+1).odt {8}hence the writ petitions deserve to be allowed. We, therefore, proceedto pass the following order:ORDER(I)Both the Writ Petitions are allowed.(II)The impugned communication dated 10.09.2025 issued byRespondent No. 4 for cancellation of the approval ordersgranted in favour of the petitioners as permanentHeadmasters is hereby quashed and set aside(III)No order as to costs.(IV)Civil Application (Stamp) No. 34614 of 2025 also standsdisposed of.[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGES P Rane