1. The Writ Petition No. 3267 of 2007 is filed by the school and the management to challenge the order passed by the school tribunal on 16th March 2007, allowing the appeal filed by respondent no. 1 (teacher) to challenge the termination order dated 26th May 2006. The school tribunal has set aside the termination order and directed reinstatement with full backwages. Considering the conduct of the petitioners, the Education Officer, Thane Municipal Corporation School Board was directed that if the backwages are not paid by the petitioners, all the dues payable to the teacher should be deducted from the grant payable to the management and shall be directly paid to the teacher. A copy of the judgment, was sent to the Education Officer, the Deputy Director, Government of Maharashtra and the Director of Education, Government of Maharashtra. It is necessary to reproduce the orders and directions issued by the tribunal.

2. By the order impugned in Writ Petition No. 3267 of 2007, the termination order dated 26th May 2006 is set aside by issuing the following directions :

                   ORDER

                   “The appeal is allowed.

                   The termination order dated 26.05.2006 is hereby set aside.

                   The respondent no. 1 and 2 are directed to reinstate the appellant within 40 days on the post of assistant teacher in primary section along with all consequential benefits including continuity of service and back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement her services shall remain in continuation.

                   The Education Officer is hereby directed, if the payment of back wages is not made by the management to the appellant within 60 days from today, then all the dues payable to the appellant shall be deducted from the grant payable to the management and be directly paid to the appellant under the intimation to this court.

                   Copy of the Judgment be sent to the Director of Education Maharashtra State Pune, Deputy Director of Education Greater Bombay and Education Officer”.

3. This petition was admitted on 6th June 2007; however, by a reasoned order, interim relief to stay the implementation of the impugned order was rejected. The petitioners challenged the rejection of the interim relief by filing a Letters Patent Appeal. However, the appeal was unconditionally withdrawn. Despite there being no interim relief in the petition, the order was not implemented by the petitioners. The directions issued to the Education Officer were also not complied with. The Education Officer, Thane Municipal Corporation School Board, is a party respondent to the writ petition of 2007. On 6th June 2007, when the petition was admitted and interim relief was refused, respondent no. 2 was present and represented through an advocate. However, neither any steps were taken to comply with the directions nor any application was filed in the petition pointing out the difficulty in implementing the directions.

4. Accordingly, respondent no. 1 had joined her services; however, she was not allowed to join her duty on 7th April 2012. Hence, she filed an Appeal No. 1 of 2014 before the school tribunal challenging her otherwise termination dated 7th April 2012. The appeal was allowed on 27th January 2017, setting aside the otherwise termination and directing reinstatement. The operative order reads thus :

                   “ORDER

                   (1) The appeal is hereby allowed.

                   (2) The impugned otherwise termination dated 07.04.2012 is hereby set aside.

                   (3) The respondents are hereby directed to reinstate the appellant on her original post of assistant teacher with all consequential benefits including back-wages and continuity of service.

                   (4) The respondent no. 1 and 2 are further directed to pay the appellant Rs. 50,000/- towards cost of this appeal.

                   (5) The Education Officer respondent no. 3 shall take every efforts that, this order is complied with by the respondent no. 1 and 2 and report the compliance to this Tribunal.

                   (6) This order be complied by the parties within four weeks from today.”

5. Considering the record, directions were issued to the Deputy Director of Education and the Education Officer for necessary action. The relevant observation in paragraph 31 of the judgment dated 27th January 2017 reads as under :

                   “(31) After going through the record it reveals that the Education Department has given directions to the respondent no. 1 and 2 several times but they are not obeying the orders of the Department. Now it is the time to take strict action against the respondent no. 1 and 2 if they failed to follow the orders of this Tribunal in this appeal within stipulated time. The Education Department is required to take strict action upto the extent of appointing Administrator on the school as per the rules and regulations. It is also necessary to meet the ends of justice to direct the Education Officer to keep close watch on this matter and report compliance within stipulated period of four weeks from the date of this order about the compliance of the order of this Tribunal. One copy of this judgment be sent to the Deputy Director of Education and the Education Officer for necessary action and compliance”.

6. The Writ Petition No. 4099 of 2017 is filed to challenge the aforesaid judgment and order dated 27th January 2017. This petition was never admitted, and no interim relief was ever granted. However, the orders passed by the school tribunal, impugned in both petitions, were not complied with. When the 2017 petition was heard by this court on 2nd February 2024, an adjournment was requested on behalf of the petitioners. A statement on behalf of the learned AGP was recorded that the respondent no. 3 in the 2007 petition, i.e., the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad Primary, was not a party to the original proceedings and hence was wrongly made a party respondent. The title of the order passed by the school tribunal shows that the respondent no. 3 before the tribunal was Education Officer, Thane Municipal Corporation School Board.

7. On 14th February 2024, after hearing the learned advocate for the petitioners, this court was not inclined to entertain the petition, as in the view of this court, there was no merit in the petition. This observation is recorded in order dated 14th February 2024. However, on the personal request of the learned advocate for the petitioners to enable him to take instructions from the petitioners, the writ petition was adjourned to 20th February 2024 for passing order and it was directed to be listed first on the board. Connected writ petition of 2007 was also directed to be listed on the next date.

8. On 20th February 2024, a new advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioners and requested to reargue the matter. Despite the earlier order, this court permitted the new advocate to reargue the matter; however, he argued the same points as on 14th February 2024. This court recorded the directions issued by the school tribunal in the orders impugned in both petitions, and the refusal by this court to grant any interim relief, as well as the withdrawal of the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the petitioners. This court was informed that, despite the order of reinstatement, no action had been taken for reinstatement or payment of backwages. During the pendency of these petitions, respondent no. 1 had superannuated on 31st December 2022. However, the orders were not complied with.

9. None had appeared for respondent no. 3. In the peculiar facts of the case, the learned AGP was asked to take instructions from the concerned department with respect to the observations in the impugned judgment in paragraph 31. Though the Education Officer was not a party to the petition, the learned AGP was directed to take instructions. Since notice was not served upon respondent nos. 2 and 3 the returnable date of service was extended. So far as respondent no. 2 is concerned, i.e. Education Officer, Thane Municipal Corporation School Board, an appearance was tendered. Hence, learned AGP was directed to take instructions as to whether learned AGP could appear for respondent no. 3, i.e., the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad Primary.

10. Thereafter, in view of the change in the assignment, the petitions were not listed, and by order dated 14th November 2024, both the petitions were directed to be listed on the final hearing board. The petitions were adjourned in the meantime in view of a change in assignments. On 16th October 2025, again due to a change in the assignment, both the petitions did not pertain to the assignment of the same court. Hence, parties were granted liberty to apply on the administrative side for tagging both petitions together. In view of the administrative order, both the petitions were listed together before this court on 7th January 2026. Again learned AGP was directed to take instructions in view of the directions issued on 20th February 2024. Unfortunately, no instructions were taken. Hence, this court issued various directions on 6th February 2026 and 9th February 2026.

11. In view of the directions passed by this court, certain amounts are released in favour of respondent no. 1. However, till date, the entire back wages and pensionary benefits as per both the orders have not been fully paid. By order dated 26th February 2026, this court recorded all the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the various directions issued by this court. Since no satisfactory explanations were given for not complying with the orders passed by the school tribunal, the Education Officer, Thane Municipal Corporation School Board, was directed to file an affidavit showing cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for non- compliance of order dated 16th March 2007 passed by the school tribunal in Appeal No. 17 of 2006. The Director and Deputy Director, Education Department of the State of Maharashtra, were directed to file an affidavit explaining why action was not taken against the petitioners and the Education Officer, Thane Municipal Corporation School Board, for non-compliance with the order dated 16th March 2007 and 27th January 2017. The contempt notice was issued to the office-bearers of the management. However, the statement was made on behalf of the petitioners that the entire proposal for payment of back wages for compliance with the orders impugned in both the petitions, including retirement benefits, would be completed to the satisfaction of respondent no. 1. Hence, the order issuing contempt notice against the office bearers was kept in abeyance.

12. On 7th March 2026, a statement was made on behalf of the petitioners that all compliance had been completed. However, the entire back wages were not released as, according to the learned AGP, the balance backwages were liable to be paid by the management. By keeping the issue open regarding liability for payment of backwages, the State Government was directed to release the amount as calculated and placed on record by the learned AGP. Accordingly, certain amounts are released towards backwages and retirement benefits to respondent no.1. However, till date the orders impugned in the petitions are not fully complied with, though there was never any interim relief granted in these petitions. In such circumstances, both the petitions were directed to be listed for hearing on merits.

13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the merits of both petitions. So far as Writ Petition No. 3267 of 2007 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the school tribunal has set aside the inquiry report mainly on the ground that the management had prejudice against respondent no. 1. He submits that the tribunal has accepted that the charges were proved against respondent no. 1, however, repeated disobedience by the management regarding the directions issued by the Education Officer caused provocation in the mind of respondent no. 1. Hence, the tribunal held that under such circumstances the inquiry cannot be accepted as conducted in a free and fair atmosphere.

14. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, though the tribunal has recorded that the surrounding circumstances and the stages of the inquiry were full of prejudices, no particulars and findings to support such observations are recorded by the tribunal. He relied upon the relevant observations in the impugned judgment where the tribunal has recorded that there was prejudice in the mind of the management against respondent no. 1 and therefore the inquiry report required interference as it was full of prejudice against respondent no. 1. He therefore submits that though the findings recorded in the inquiry report are held to be accepted and the charges are held to be proved, the school tribunal only on the ground of prejudice has set aside the inquiry report and the termination order on the ground that there was provocation on the part of the petitioners and the inquiry was conducted with prejudices against respondent no. 1.

15. To support his submissions that the findings on provocation would be irrelevant to deciding the merits of the termination order, he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hombe Gowda Educational Trust and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Others((2006) 1 SCC 430). He submits that the Apex Court held that the issue of provocation could not be a ground for disturbing the findings recorded by the inquiry officer and the tribunal establishing the charges against the employee. He submits that, even in the present case, although the charges are accepted by the tribunal, the termination order is set aside on the ground of prejudice and provocation.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Ahilyabai Holkar Shikshan Prasarak and Another vs. Venkatrao s/o. Dnyanoba Mane and Another(Writ Petition No. 7446 of 2009). He submits that the scope of inquiry by the tribunal is limited and the evidence cannot be reappreciated. He submits that, in the present case, it is a clear case of reappreciation of the evidence before the inquiry committee, leading to a different conclusion by the tribunal. He therefore submits that the impugned order in Writ Petition No. 3267 of 2007 would require interference by this court.

17. So far as Writ Petition No. 4099 of 2017 is concerned, he submits that the otherwise termination of 7th April 2012 is set aside by the tribunal without considering the specific pleadings by the petitioners that respondent no. 1 was never prohibited from joining her duties. However, it was respondent no. 1 who refused to join her duties. He relied upon a letter dated 9th April 2012 annexed to the petition to support his submissions that, despite various directions issued, it was respondent no. 1 who had refused to join her duties. The letter dated 9th April 2012, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is a letter issued by the headmaster to the Education Minister of the State of Maharashtra.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submits that respondent no. 1 failed to produce any evidence to show that she was prohibited from joining her duties. The tribunal, without considering the various letters pleaded by the petitioners, accepted respondent no. 1’s contentions regarding her otherwise termination. He submits that by relying upon the earlier orders and the pendency of the petitions in this court, the tribunal set aside the otherwise termination and directed reinstatement with full backwages. He submits that the findings recorded by the tribunal accepting the otherwise termination are not supported by any evidence. The petitioners’ contention that respondent no. 1 was called upon to join her duties, but she refused and failed to join her duties, is not considered by the tribunal. He therefore submits that even the second order of reinstatement passed by the tribunal would require interference by this court.

19. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submits that the tribunal has rightly accepted the contentions regarding the conduct of the management and the head master to record findings regarding the prejudice against respondent no. 1 and the humiliating treatment given to her. He submits that the findings recorded by the inquiry committee accepting charges of assault and misconduct against the headmistress were never framed against respondent no. 1.

20. Hence, the findings of the inquiry committee are inconsistent with the charges framed. Hence, the tribunal has rightly interfered and set aside the order of termination, which is challenged in the 2007 petition. He submits that the tribunal is well within its power to re-appreciate the evidence, as the end result of the inquiry committee was inconsistent with the charges framed and the evidence led by the petitioners. Hence, the order impugned in the 2007 petition would not warrant any interference in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this court.

21. With reference to the petitioners challenging the otherwise termination, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 supports the findings recorded by the tribunal. He submits that no evidence was produced on record to show that respondent no. 1 was called upon to join her duties, and it was she who refused to join her duties. The letter dated 9th April 2012 relied upon by the petitioners is not part of the evidence before the tribunal. Even otherwise, the said letter would not support the contentions that respondent no.1 was called upon to join her duties, and it was she who refused to join. He submits that by appreciating the evidence on record, the tribunal has rightly concluded that it was otherwise termination of respondent no.1, hence, set aside the otherwise termination by imposing costs.

22. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submits that the conduct of the petitioners in making all the efforts not to comply with the orders passed by the tribunal itself is a sufficient ground not to interfere in the discretionary jurisdiction of this court. He therefore submits that both the petitions are bereft of any merits and must be dismissed.

23. I have carefully perused the entire record of both the petitions. In the 2007 petition, the impugned order sets aside the termination order based on the committee's inquiry report. The representative of respondent no. 1 submitted a minority report disbelieving the allegations against her. The majority report held that the charges against respondent no.1 were proved. The show-cause notice contained the allegations against respondent no. 1 that she had assaulted and abused the headmistress. There were other general allegations against respondent no. 1 in the show cause notice regarding dereliction in performance of her duties, remaining absent, misbehaving with the students and threatening the staff. Respondent no. 1 replied to the show cause notice and denied the allegations. It appears that after considering the reply, charges were framed on 14th January 2006. The charges are under two headings: one for misconduct and another for non-performance of duties.

24. In the allegations of misconduct, there are general charges of remaining absent without taking leave and humiliating and misconduct against seniors. In the charges under both headings, there was no charge framed on the allegations that respondent no. 1 had allegedly assaulted and humiliated the headmistress.

25. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon specific findings in the majority inquiry committee report, with the allegations against respondent no. 1 that she had assaulted and abused the headmistress, which is accepted by the committee. The inquiry officer accepted the allegations against one of the teachers and the headmistress based on the evidence. Thus, the findings of the inquiry committee were relied upon to support the submissions that the tribunal has reappreciated the evidence before the inquiry officer in arriving at a different conclusion.

26. As recorded by the inquiry officer, except for the other general allegations regarding the non-performance of duties, the main allegations and charges accepted against respondent no. 1 are assaulting and abusing the headmistress. Firstly, the charges are bereft of any such allegation which has reference to the findings of misconduct, assault and abuse recorded by the inquiry officer of assault and abuse against the headmistress.

27. The show cause notice refers to the allegations pertaining to the incident of 12th December 2005 against respondent no. 1 abusing and assaulting the headmistress. However, the charges framed after considering the reply are general in nature, and no specific charge with reference to the incident of 12th December 2005 of assault on the headmistress was framed. However, the inquiry report concludes by accepting the charge against respondent no. 1, which was never framed.

28. All these facts and circumstances are considered by the school tribunal. The school tribunal has considered the overall record, the charge sheet containing the charges of misconduct and negligence of duties. With reference to the show cause notice, the charges, and the findings recorded by the inquiry committee, it appears that the tribunal has taken a holistic view of the entire facts and circumstances and held that there was prejudice against respondent no. 1 from the beginning.

29. The entire stages of the inquiry are held to be conducted by keeping prejudice and preconceived notions against respondent no. 1. The findings recorded by the minority report and the majority report are considered by the tribunal. The tribunal has also considered the non- compliance of various directions issued against the management by the Education Department. For arriving at a conclusion regarding prejudice against respondent no. 1, the tribunal has also considered her submissions that the headmistress being wife of the chairman of the institution was holding centralised powers and thus accepted the contention of respondent no. 1 that the entire inquiry proceedings were conducted keeping prejudices against respondent no. 1. One of the allegations by respondent no. 1 that an amount of Rs. 250/- was compulsorily accepted from all the teachers as donation and respondent no. 1’s objection to the same was also accepted as one of the considerations to accept the allegation of prejudice.

30. Before the order of termination dated 26th May 2006, an appeal of 2005 against an order of otherwise termination was also set aside by the tribunal, which is part of one of the considerations in arriving at findings of prejudice and unfair treatment to respondent no. 1. Thus. The tribunal, after considering the entire record of the management and the record of the inquiry committee, concluded that the inquiry report was riddled with breaches and not conducted in a free and fair manner, and hence found it fit to set aside the report and the termination order.

31. On perusal of the record, the findings recorded by the tribunal, finds place in the allegations and the conduct on the part of the petitioners. Considering the allegations in the show cause notice and the charges framed and the findings recorded on the charges, which were never framed, also support the findings of the tribunal that the entire inquiry proceedings were initiated with prejudice and thus were not conducted in a free and fair manner.

32. So far as Writ Petition No. 4099 of 2017 is concerned, the letter dated 9th April 2012 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is a letter addressed to the Minister of Education. Even otherwise, the said letter is not part of the evidence. There is nothing to show that the said letter was produced and proved in evidence. The said letter issued to the Education Minister cannot be accepted as any evidence that respondent no. 1 deliberately refused to join her duties.

33. The tribunal, after examining the entire record, accepted the allegations that the conduct of the petitioners in not permitting respondent no. 1 to join her duties would amount to otherwise termination. Respondent no. 1 has produced various letters on record to support her contentions that she repeatedly made a grievance that she was not permitted to join duties. Hence, the tribunal examined all the particulars regarding respondent no. 1 joining her duties, her absence in view of her proceeding on leave on the relevant dates and the conduct of the petitioners in not permitting her to sign muster and thus not allowing her to join her duties. The tribunal’s findings are thus based on its appreciation of the evidence produced before it. In the absence of any evidence to support the petitioners’ contention that respondent no. 1 deliberately remained away from work, and thus it would not amount to an otherwise termination, it is rightly not accepted by the tribunal. While setting aside the order of termination, the tribunal has observed the conduct of the petitioners in not complying with the directions issued by the Education department. Hence, the tribunal directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Deputy Director of Education and the Education Officer for necessary action and compliance. The tribunal also directed the education department to consider taking strict action upto the extent of appointing Administrator for the school. The tribunal therefore allowed the appeal and directed the petitioners to reinstate respondent no. 1. In view of the conduct of the petitioners, they were directed to pay the cost of Rs. 50,000/- to respondent no. 1.

34. The scope of interference by the school tribunal is discussed in the decision of Ahilyabhai Holkar Shikshan Prasark Mandal. This court, while considering the scope of interference and appreciation of evidence, observed that the tribunal can interfere where the authority held proceedings in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice and in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry, or whether the conclusion or findings reached by the tribunal are based on no evidence. In the present case, the tribunal has recorded findings based on the material on record that the conduct of the petitioners was based on the prejudice against respondent no. 1 and therefore the proceedings were not conducted in a free and fair manner. The allegations in the show cause notice were denied by respondent no. 1, and the charges on the allegations of assault on the headmistress were not framed. However, the conclusion of the inquiry report is based on those allegations in respect of which the charge was not framed. Hence, on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice, the tribunal was well within its power to interfere with the findings recorded by the inquiry committee. In view of the different facts of this case regarding prejudice and breach of principles of natural justice, the legal principles settled in Hombe Gowda Educational Trust would not be of any assistance to the petitioners.

35. Thus, both the judgments impugned in these petitions are based on a correct appreciation of the evidence on record. In none of the decisions do I find any illegality or perversity warranting any interference in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The conduct of the petitioners as recorded in the above paragraphs also does not warrant any interference in the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of this court. The scope of interference in the exercise of powers under Article 227 is no longer res integra. The Apex Court in the decision of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil((2010) 8 SCC 329) has summarised the scope of interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The relevant extracts from paragraph 49 are as under:

                   “49. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated:

                   ........

                   ........ .

                   (e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh [AIR 1954 SC 215] , followed in subsequent cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and courts subordinate to it, “within the bounds of their authority”.

                   (f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them.

                   (g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunals and courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.

                   (h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised.

                   emphasis applied

36. For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any ground to exercise the writ jurisdiction to interfere in the impugned judgments. Both writ petitions are therefore dismissed.

37. In Writ Petition No. 4099 of 2017, this court had granted a stay to the extent of the direction of payment of costs to respondent no. 1. It is thus clarified that the interim protection granted stands vacated. The petitioners shall therefore comply with the directions of payment of costs within four weeks from today.

38. So far as the compliance of directions issued by the tribunal this court has passed a detailed order on 26th February 2026 calling upon the Director, Deputy Director of Education Department of State of Maharashtra and Education Officer, Thane Municipal School Board to submit explanation as to why necessary action should not be taken for non-compliance of the directions issued by the tribunal as well as this court. By the said order, a contempt notice was issued against the petitioners for non-compliance with the orders passed by the tribunal as well as this court. However, in view of the statement made on behalf of the petitioners, the order issuing contempt notice was kept in abeyance. The petitioners have thereafter complied with their statement by submitting a proposal for releasing back wages as per the impugned judgment and orders, and retirement benefits. The said compliance is recorded in the order dated 7th March 2026. Hence, the order issuing contempt notice against the petitioners recorded in order dated 26th February 2026 stands canceled.

39. In view of the directions issued on 26th February 2026, the Education Officer of Thane Municipal Corporation School Board has tendered an affidavit dated 12th March 2026. The affidavit is bereft of any explanation as to why the directions issued by the school tribunal by order dated 16th March 2007 have not been complied with. The only explanation given by the Education Officer is that the necessary communication was forwarded to the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad Primary. The school tribunal has issued a specific direction that if payment of back wages is not made by the management within 60 days then all the dues payable to respondent no. 1 shall be deducted from the grant payable to the management and be directly paid to respondent no. 1 under intimation to the tribunal. There is no dispute that the Education Officer, Thane Municipal Corporation School Board, was aware of these directions. There is also no dispute that no efforts were made on behalf of the Education Officer for compliance with the said directions.

40. Learned counsel appearing for the Education Officer, Thane Municipal Corporation School Board, submits that the Education Officer has no role to play in releasing the grants to the school management. However, there is no positive statement made that the approval/recommendation of the Education Officer, Thane Municipal Corporation School Board, is not necessary for releasing payments. The affidavit also does not give any particulars and explanation from the concerned Education Officer at the relevant time, who was under an obligation to comply with the directions. The Education Officer, Thane Municipal Corporation School Board, shall therefore file an additional affidavit by calling for an appropriate explanation from the Education Officer at the relevant time as to why the directions issued by the school tribunal were not complied with.

41. It is clarified that if an appropriate explanation is not submitted, this court shall consider issuing a contempt notice against the concerned Education Officer holding the post at the relevant time. The necessary additional affidavit shall be tendered on the next date.

42. Learned AGP has tendered an affidavit of the Deputy Director of Education dated 26th March 2026. Even this affidavit has no satisfactory explanation. The affidavit also does not provide any explanation as to why the entire back wages and complete retirement benefits are not released, though 100% grant is provided to the petitioners. In the entire affidavit, the explanation is with regard to the order dated 27th January 2017. It is not the case of the Deputy Director that the order dated 16th March 2007 was not supplied in the office of the Director or the Deputy Director, Education Department, State of Maharashtra. The affidavit has no explanation for non-compliance with the said directions.

43. Learned AGP submits that he shall file additional affidavit of the Deputy Director. He submits that, due to technical problems, he was unable to file the affidavit of the Director of the Education Department in compliance with the order dated 26th February 2026. He therefore seeks time to file an additional affidavit of the Deputy Director and a separate affidavit of the Director of Education by the next date. Time granted as prayed by way of last chance.

44. Though the petitions are dismissed, the office shall list the petition on 16th April 2026 for recording compliance and further directions in terms of the order dated 26th February 2026. To be listed first on the board.