High Court · 2026

wp-14565-2025.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.14565 OF 20251.Ramrao s/o Babasaheb ShepAge: 37 years, Occu.: Service asAssistant Teacher,R/o. At Post, Bankarnja,Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.2.Prabodhkant s/o Shivaji SamudreAge: 31 years, Occu.: Service asAssistant Teacher,R/o. At post Chinchpur,Tq. Dharur, Dist. Beed.3.Smt. Shaila d/o Vitthalrao DorkheAge: 30 years, Occu.: Service as Assistant Teacher,R/o. At Post Hole,Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed... PetitionersVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough its Secretary,School Education Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.2.The Deputy Director of Education,Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.3.The Education Officer (Secondary),Zilla Parishad, Beed.4.Jivan Vikas Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,Kaij, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.Through its President/Secretary.5.Swami Vivekanand Vidyamandir (MAVI),Kaij, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.Through its Head Master .. Respondents[1] wp-14565-2025.odt…Mr. V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for the petitioners.Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3/State.... CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ. RESERVED ON : 06 MARCH 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 17 MARCH 2026ORDER (Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.) :-.The petitioners had initially prayed for direction against respondentNo.2 to include the names of petitioners in Shalarth I.D., however, during thependency of the petition, it appears that said proposal has been decided on22.05.2024. Therefore, by way of amendment, the impugned order passedby respondent No.2 rejecting the proposal for inclusion of the names of thepetitioners in Shalarth I. D. has also been challenged.2.Heard learned Advocate Mr. V. S. Panpatte for the petitioners andlearned AGP Mr. A. M. Phule for respondent Nos.1 to 3/State.3.Though voluminous documents have been produced on record, thefact remains is that the petitioners’ appointments with respondent No.5school, which is run by respondent No.4 management, are not in dispute.The approval was granted to the appointments of the petitioners by theEducation Officer and thereafter, after necessary procedure the proposals[2] wp-14565-2025.odtwere given for inclusion of the names of the petitioners in Shalarth I.D. Asthe proposal was not being decided, one of the petitioners had approachedthis Hon’ble Court, whereupon this Court directed respondent No.2 to decidethe said proposal. It appears that the said proposal/application has thereafterbeen rejected.4.Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the rejection of theproposals for inclusion of the petitioners’ names in the Shalarth I.D. byrespondent No.2 is erroneous. The said proposals have been rejected in viewof the Government Resolution dated 29.04.2024.5.We do not want to go much into the details. From the perusal of theimpugned orders dated 22.05.2024 passed by respondent No.2, it can beseen that no details have been mentioned and the rejection is on a crypticnote. It is stated only that “’kklu i= fn-29-04-2024 uqlkj vekU;-” It hasnot been clarified which provision of the said Government Resolution has notbeen followed. If we consider the said Government Resolution dated29.04.2024, it is in the nature of directions issued to the Education Officers,giving jurisdiction to respondent No.2 to decide such proposals where thetransfer is from an unaided or partially aided school to a fully aided school.The decisions of this Court in Mansi Arun Kelkar Vs. The State ofMaharashtra Through its Principal Secretary and others, [Writ Petition[3] wp-14565-2025.odtNo.1021 of 2025 decided on 03.02.2025] and Amol Baban Sangar Vs. TheState of Maharashtra and others, [Writ Petition No.8966 of 2021 decided on21.02.2022] have not been followed while considering the proposals forincluding the name of the petitioner in Shalarth I.D. 6.Learned AGP submits that the petitioners have been transferred fromunaided to aided post and, therefore, such approvals and inclusion of nameof Shalarth I. D. is now within the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Education,Pune. Respondent No.2 Kailas Ganpatrao Datkhil has filed affidavit-in-replyand then submits that after scrutinizing the proposals, he had taken out sixdeficiencies and issued letter to the management on 04.03.2026, which wasin the nature of show cause-cum-hearing notice to all the persons. Thehearing took place on 10.03.2026 by adhering to the principles of naturaljustice and thereafter, the decision has been taken. He now relies on theGovernment Resolution dated 10.06.2022.7.The first and the foremost fact that is required to be noted is thatwhatever has been stated by Mr. Kailas Datkhil in the affidavit-in-reply hasnot been reflected in the order that was passed on 22.05.2024. In fact, thesethree letters in respect of three petitioners are signed by JuniorAdministrative Officer attached to the office of respondent No.2. It does notgive those details when the hearing had taken place and in fact, these orders[4] wp-14565-2025.odtare not even signed by respondent No.2. The letters or orders dated22.05.2024 do not say that the said letters have been issued on the directionsof respondent No.2. Therefore, there is a total chaos in the office ofrespondent No.2, which is in fact unnecessary. In his affidavit Mr. KailasDatkhil is not explaining as to why he had not signed those letters or alongwith affidavit he has not annexed the order that was passed by him and,therefore, his statements are of no value. Though he says that he had reliedon the Government Resolution dated 10.02.2022, he has not explained as towhy he had not considered the decisions of this Court in Amol Baban Sangar(Supra) and Mansi Arun Kelkar (Supra). The rejection has to be a reasonedorder and, therefore, the impugned orders in this case deserve to be quashedand set aside. 8.The Education Officers or the Higher Officers from the saiddepartment, due to their arbitrariness, are creating litigations, which in factthey can avoid. They are unnecessarily making the teachers or non teachingstaff to approach this Court and even at times on multiple times.Comprehensive directions have been given in the recent past by this Courtwhich they should observe and in fact, the higher officers from thatdepartment should give clear directions to such officers. In fact, there shouldbe a mechanism to evaluate the accountability of such erring officers, as theyare forcing the teachers to approach the High Courts. We therefore impose[5] wp-14565-2025.odtcost on respondent No.2 for passing such cryptic order and forcing thepetitioners to approach this Court. 9.Now, the jurisdiction to decide the said proposals in respect of thepetitioners is with the Commissioner of Education, Pune. Though he is notthe party, we are giving appropriate directions. Hence, the following order :-ORDERI)The Writ Petition stands partly allowed.II)The impugned orders dated 22.05.2024 passed in respect ofeach of the petitioners, signed by Junior Administrative Officer fromthe office of respondent No.2, stands quashed and set aside.III)We direct the Commissioner of Education, Pune to call theproposals in respect of petitioners from respondent Nos.4 and 5 withina period of three weeks from today to himself and after makingscrutiny and giving hearing, if required, to the management as well asthe petitioner, should decide those proposals within a period of eightweeks thereafter.IV)Respondent No.2 Mr. Kailas Ganpatrao Datkhil to depositamount of Rs.10,000/- with the High Court Legal Services SubCommittee, Aurangabad within a period of 15 days from today. [ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGEscm[6]