Shri. Shivaji Rangnath Patil & Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

(PER ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging the order dated 4^th September 2026 passed by the Respondent No. 2 – Joint Director whereby the proposal for individual approval to the appointment of the Petitioner No.1 made by the Petitioner No. 2 – Educational Institution in the post of Store Clerk at Petitioner No. 3 – School was rejected.

The Petitioners are seeking a direction to the Respondent No.3 to grant individual approval to the appointment of the Petitioner No. 1 in the post of Store Clerk. The Petitioners are also seeking a consequential direction to the Respondents to allot Sevarth ID to the Petitioner No. 1 and release the salary payable to the Petitioner No. 1 with arrears.

Mr. Bhavake, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has submitted that, no reply would be necessary in the facts of this case as after this Court by order dated 10^th August 2026 in Writ Petition No. 16112 of 2024, after hearing the Petitioners as well as the State had quashed and set aside the communication dated 30^th April 2024 directing the Respondent No. 3 to consider the Petitioner’s application afresh, the Respondent No. 2 – Joint Director has rejected the proposal on 4^th September 2026 only on the ground that no prior permission was obtained prior to advertisement for the said post or for appointing the Petitioner No. - 1 in the post of Store Clerk which was due to the retirement of the then Store Clerk viz. Shri. A. H. Morale on 30^th April 2021 by way of superannuation and that in similar facts with respect to the case of Junior Clerk, this Court has by judgment dated 22^nd October 2026 in Writ Petition No. 19013 of 2024 allowed the Petition inter-alia relying upon the decision of a division bench of this Court in the case of Gramvikas Shikshan Mandal Vs. The State of Maharashtra^{11.Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 4493 of 2022, Order dated 26 April 2023 (Principal Seat)}.

Learned AGP appearing for the Respondent – State has been unable to effectively oppose the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner.

Accordingly, Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard finally.

It is not in dispute that the Petitioner No. 1 is B.A., P.G.D.C.A. and has also passed Marathi and English Typing as well as MS-CIT Examination and was appointed in the post of Store Clerk on 1^st July 2021 on a probationary period of three years to fill up the vacancy of the erstwhile Store Clerk who retired on 30^th April 2021.

It has not been disputed that due to the retirement of the then Store Clerk viz. Shri. A. H. Morale on 30^th April 2021 by way of superannuation, a post of Store Clerk became vacant at the Technical Department of the Petitioner No. 3 – School. That since, the sole post of Store Clerk is sanctioned at the Technical Department of the Petitioner No. 3 – School, reservation policy was not applicable to the said post and that therefore, before proceeding to fill up such vacancy, the representative of the Petitioner No. 2 - Educational Institution approached the offices of Respondents No. 2 and 3 to ascertain whether any suitable candidates were available for the said post. It is submitted that since such information of suitable surplus Store Clerk was not available with the offices of Respondents No. 2 and 3, the Secretary of the Petitioner No. 2 – Educational Institution also made applications dated 4^th May 2021 and 19^th May 2021 to the Respondents No. 2 and 3 thereby seeking permission for recruitment of the said vacant post of Store Clerk which were not responded to. It has been submitted that, in view of the obligation laid down in Section 5(1) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (the “MEPS Act”), it was incumbent upon the Petitioner No. 2 – Educational Institution to fill up the said post as soon as possible and that since the sole post of Store Clerk was sanctioned at the Petitioner No. 3 – School, it was not feasible for the Petitioners No. 2 and 3 to keep the said post vacant. As no suitable candidate was available for the post of Store Clerk and no reply to the proposal seeking permission for recruitment of the vacant post was received, the Petitioner No. 2 went ahead and published advertisement in the daily newspaper “Pritisangam” dated 5^th June 2021 thereby advertising for the said post of Store Clerk. A perusal of said advertisement at Exhibit – C indicates that eligible candidates were directed to remain present for interview along with the original documents on 22^nd June 2021. It has not been disputed that the Petitioner No. 1 who, having the requisite qualification, applied for the said post, remained present for the interview on the scheduled date and after the selection process, having been found to be suitable and meritorious was selected for the said post. That thereafter, a School Committee passed resolution in its meeting on 23^rd June 2021 resolving to appoint the Petitioner No. 1 in the post of Store Clerk at the Petitioner No. 3 – School after which, the appointing authority vide appointment order dated 24^th June 2021 appointed the Petitioner No. 1 in the post of Store Clerk on probationary period of three years with effect from 1^st July 2021. It has also not been disputed that the Petitioner No. 1 successfully completed the probationary period and became deemed permanent in his service as per Section 5(2) of the MEPS Act and continues to work at the said post.

It is submitted that thereafter, the Headmaster of the Petitioner No. 3 – School tried to submit proposal for individual approval for the aforesaid appointment of Petitioner No. 1 to the office of the Respondent No. 3 however, the office of the Respondent No. 3 refused to accept the same by orally stating that there was ban on recruitment although, the same was disputed by the Petitioners. It is submitted that finally on 18^th April 2024 the office of Respondent No. 3 accepted the proposal and vide order dated 30^th April 2024 the said proposal was returned without considering the same against which Writ Petition No. 16112 of 2024 came to be filed and after hearing both the parties vide order dated 10^th August 2026, the order dated 30^th April 2024 was quashed and set aside and Respondent No. 3 was directed to reconsider the proposal. The Petitioners thereafter through the Headmaster of the Petitioner No. 3 – School resubmitted the proposal seeking individual approval to the said appointment of the Petitioner No. 1 after which, the Joint Director viz. the Respondent No. 2 has passed the order dated 4^th September 2026 rejecting the proposal.

A perusal of the said order indicates that the only reason assigned is that prior permission was not obtained. As noted above, Mr. Bhavake has relied upon the decision of this Court dated 22^nd October 2026 in Writ Petition No. 19013 of 2024 which has in turn relied upon the decision of a division bench of this Court in the case of Gramvikas Shikshan Mandal Vs. The State of Maharashtra (supra). It is not in dispute that the Secretary of the Petitioner No. 2 – Educational Institution made applications dated 4^th May 2021 and 19^th May 2021 to the Respondents No. 2 and 3 seeking permission for recruitment of the vacant post of the Store Clerk however, the said Respondents No. 2 and 3 did not respond to the said applications. Under Section 5 (1) of the MEPS Act, it is incumbent upon the Petitioner No. 2 – Educational Institution to fill up the vacancy as soon as possible and since in the present case, the sole post of the Store Clerk was sanctioned at the Petitioner No. 3 – School, the Petitioners No. 2 and 3 could not have kept the said post vacant and since no suitable candidate was available for the post of Store Clerk and no reply to the communications seeking permission for recruitment of the vacant post was received, the Petitioner No. 2 published the advertisement for the recruitment to the said post in the newspaper “Pritisangam” dated 5^th June 2021 and thereafter, proceeded to conduct the interview and appoint the Petitioner No. 1 as noted above to fill up the vacant post for which in our view, no fault can be found with the Petitioners. The Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as a Store Clerk on a probationary period of three years and thereafter also confirmed and continues to work as a Store Clerk with the Petitioner No. 3 – School. The Petitioners No. 2 and 3 cannot be expected to have kept the said post vacant for such time as the State decides to take cognizance of the request of the management.

Although, this Court by order dated 10^th August 2026 had set aside the order dated 30^th April 2024 returning the proposal without considering the same and directed fresh consideration by the Respondent No. 3, it is observed that the only reason for which the proposal has been rejected is that, no prior permission was obtained which in our view is not tenable as noted above. The above view is fortified by the decision of this Court in the case of Shri. Sagun Bala Neman And Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra And Others^{22.Writ Petition No. 19013 of 2024, Judgment dated 22 October 2026.}.

In this view of the matter, the order of the Respondent No. 2 – Joint Director dated 4^th September 2026 deserves to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside.

In our view, the appointment of the Petitioner No. 1 in the post of Store Clerk by the Petitioners No. 2 and 3 has been done in compliance with the obligations under Section 5(1) of the MEPS Act and there is no infirmity in the process followed to fill up the vacant post.

Accordingly, Rule is made absolute and the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clauses (b) and (c) which read thus:

The Writ Petition to accordingly stand allowed and disposed as above.

All to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court.