Ajit B. Kadethankar, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considering the subject-matter of the Writ Petition, we deem it necessary to hear this matter for final disposal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their actual status.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

Subject matter:

3.1. Proposal seeking approval to Petitioner No.1's appointment as ‘Peon’ has been turned down by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur. The objections as to ‘non-submission of certain documents, effect of ban imposed by the State Government for certain period, non-compliance of formal procedure, and applicability of staffing pattern sought to be introduced by Government Resolution dated 23.11.2013 are referred as the reasons to discard the proposal.

                   3.2. Considering the pleadings and the arguments advanced by the Parties, we frame following points for our consideration :-

                   (i) Whether ban imposed by the Government Resolution post subject-matter appointments would invalidate the approval proposal?

                   (ii) Whether in the peculiar circumstances if education officer merely sits on the application, an appointment if made by following the requisite procedure and without any element of fraud, misrepresentation of facts, or manipulation of record, would be vitiated for want of No Objection from the Education Officer?

                   (iii) Changes in the staffing patterns in the private schools, effects of the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2013, 12.02.2015, 28.01.2019, and 12.12.2020, and fate of the appointments made during the transition of the policies on staffing patterns.

FACTS :-

4.1. The petitioner has passed the Secondary School Certificate Examination and stands qualified for appointment to the post of `Peon’ in a school. He belongs to Scheduled Caste category. A Peon namely, Shri.D.R.Kamble, belonging to Scheduled Caste category, was due for retirement on superannuation on 31.08.2014. The post on which Shri.D.R.Kamble was working was a sanctioned and duly approved Class-IV post reserved for Scheduled Caste category.

                   4.2. Noticing the vacancy proposed to fall vacant on 31.08.2014 due to superannuation of Shri.D.R.Kamble, the petitioner no.1 – school Management initiated a process to fill up the vacancy. Well in advance, i.e. on 01.07.2014, the School Management submitted an application to respondent no.5 – Education Officer (Secondary), Kolhapur, thereby seeking (i) information of the availability of a suitable surplus person, and (ii) for publishing advertisement to invite applications in the event of non availability of such suitable surplus candidate.

                   4.3. It is not disputed that the Education Officer neither supplied any information nor granted permission pursuant to the application made by the school management. This constrained the petitioner school Management to publish an advertisement on 11.08.2014 in the newspaper `Daily Samaj’. Pursuant to the advertisement, along with some other candidates, the petitioner underwent the selection process and the school Management found him suitable to be appointed on the subject-matter post of Peon, reserved for Scheduled Caste category, which had fallen vacant due to superannuation of a permanent employee Shri.D.R.Kamble. On 30.08.2014, the school Management passed a resolution to appoint petitioner no.3 on the subject-matter post of Peon. On 31.08.2014, petitioner no.3 came to be appointed on the subject-matter post of Peon.

                   4.4 The sequence of events in appointment of petitioner no.3 on the subject-matter post could be seen as above.

                   4.5. Mr.Prashant Bhavake, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that after petitioner no.3’s appointment, the Headmaster of the petitioner - school attempted to submit a proposal with respondent no.5 – Education Officer, seeking approval to the appointment of petitioner no.3. However, said proposal was never entertained on some or the other reason predominantly referring to the ban imposed by the State Government.

                   4.6 Mr.Bhavake fairly agrees that on 07.03.2022, the Education Officer accepted the proposal submitted by the school seeking approval to the petitioner no.3’s appointment. However, the Education Officer did not proceed with to sanction the proposal. This constrained the petitioners to file Writ Petition No.9852 of 2022. On 22.08.2022, this court disposed of the Writ Petition directing the Education Officer to take appropriate decision within a period of six months.

                   4.7. Mr.Bhavake, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 12.09.2022, the Headmaster of the school submitted a comprehensive proposal to the Education Officer again attaching all the requisite documents which were orally required for. However, vide the impugned order dated 27.10.2022, the Education Officer has turned down the said proposal by rendering following reasons:-

                  

                  

                  

Petitioner’s Submissions:-

5.1. Mr.Bhavake, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the foremost reason to reject the proposal is reliance placed by the Education Officer on such Government Resolutions, which are not applicable to the petitioner no.3’s appointment. It is further submitted that although there is delay in submitting the proposal, that itself shall not invalidate the appointment of the petitioner no.3 for the reason that it was not deliberate at the behest of the Petitioners. He would submit that the petitioners even waive the claim of interest on the salary grants for the period between the date of appointment of petitioner no.3 and the date of the proposal.

                   5.2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners would further submit that whatever documents are requisitioned by the Education Officer were in fact attached with the proposal and also attached to the present petition. He further submits that even today, the petitioners are ready to refurnish such documents to the Education Officer, if needed.

                   5.3. Lastly he submits that the subject-matter post was already sanctioned post on which Shri. D.R.Kamble was working. The post had fallen vacant due to the superannuation of Shri.D.R.Kamble. It belongs to Scheduled Caste category to which Shri. D.R.Kamble as also petitioner no.3 belong. As such, there could be no violation of any roster nor it is the case of excess appointment, as is contended by the Education Officer. As such, Mr. Bhavake, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petition. He demonstrates that the subject-matter appointment is not in exception of the existing staffing pattern nor could be said to be in exception to the formal procedure for the appointment.

He would specifically record his objection as to the effect of Government Resolution dated 23.10.2013. He submits that the 2013 Government Resolution was never implemented, and hence the subject-matter appointment was in accordance with the prevailing staffing pattern. He would urge to consider the sequence of the various Government Resolutions post 23.10.2013 which would clearly demonstrate that the Government Resolution of 2013 could never became operational.

6. Respondents Argument:-

                   6.1. Ms.Kapre, learned AGP for the respondents - State authorities, would vehemently oppose the Writ Petition. She submitted that an exhaustive reply affidavit is filed on behalf of the Education Officer. Ms.Kapre strenuously submits that the delay in filing the proposal itself creates doubt on the genuineness of the proposal and appointment of the petitioner no.3 on the subject- matter post.

                   6.2. She further submits that the post could not be said to be sanctioned one and in fact, the petitioner no.3 cannot be said to have been validly appointed. She places reliance on paragraph nos.6 to 11 which are reproduced as follows:-

                   6. say and submit that, by coming into force of the Maharashtra Right of Child to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 the norms of admissibility of non-teaching posts are on the verge of extensive change and due to the said change there is a possibility of an unprecedented number of non-teaching employees becoming surplus. The staff approval order is the document that determines the exact number of surplus non-teaching employees in the school. considering this the Government of Maharashtra has introduced a new staffing pattern for non- teaching staff in Secondary Schools vide Government Resolution dated 23.10.2013 wherein, new staffing pattern for non-teaching staff is introduced.

                   The said Government Resolution dated 23/10/2013 was issued in supersession of the then existing criteria of non-teaching staff contained in secondary school code, Chiplunkar committee, and Government Resolution 25/11/2005.

                   In the Government resolution dated 23/10/2013, the non-teaching staff who becomes surplus due to new criteria shall have to be absorbed in the same district, division, or on the state level and the unobserved but surplus non- teaching staff shall be retained in service up to superannuation age and the excess posts would lapse after retirement the surplus non-teachings employees. It is submitted that the state government has formulated a raised policy in respect of the availability of non-teaching staff of the recognized aided school vide government resolution dated 23/10/2013. The copy of the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2013 is annexed herewith as Exhibit -R-1.

                   7. I further submit that, The Government of Maharashtra vide Government Resolution dated 12.02.2015 have granted a stay to new recruitment and have directed not to fill up vacant post in non-employees in the private grant in aid school till further order as per government Resolution 12/02/2015 had granted a stay to new recruitment and was directed not to fill up the vacant post of non-teaching employees in the private grant in aided schools on existing staffing pattern till further order & if it is found that any appointments are made despite status quo order then criminal offense shall be registered against the concerned authorities. The copy of the Government Resolution dated 12.02.2015 is annexed herewith as Exhibit - R-2.

                   8. I say and submit that on dated 13.9.2022 Petitioner No.1 submitted the proposal of Petitioner No. 3 appointment for approval. After scrutinizing this proposal this Respondent vide official order dated 27.10.2022 has rightly rejected the personal approval of Petitioner No.3 appointment because this appointment was made by Petitioner No. 1 & 2 school management by violating the following government policy.

                   i. NOC for recruitment and advertisement was not taken as per mandatory Government Resolution dated 6.2.2012. 13.9.2022 without explaining the delay.

                   iii. The certified roster from backward cell Pune was not submitted.

                   iv. Record of attendance from the date of appointment not submitted.

                   v. As per the staffing pattern fix vide Government Resolution dated 23.10.2013, there was one post sanction for peon for Petitioner no.2 school and no vacant post available for appointment of Petitioner No.3.

                   9. I say and submit that. As per the proposal of Respondent No.6 Management the appointment of the petitioner was made on dated 1.7.2014. The proposal for approval of the petitioner should have been submitted immediately in the year itself. However, the proposal in question has been submitted after the lapse of 8 years i.e. on 13.9.2022

                   10. I say and submit that, it is fact on record that Petitioner No.1 & 2 school management was appointed petitioner without observing the policy of the government. Petitioner No.1 runs the Petitioner No.2 School on a grand-in-aid basis and this institute is mandatory to obey the rules of the State Government issued from time to time. The Government of Maharashtra introduced a new staffing pattern for non-teaching staff of class IV on 11/12/2020, in which the Government of Maharashtra has abolished posts of class IV in the recognized school of private partly fully aided secondary and higher secondary schools within the state. This respondent further submitted that vide this government Resolution state government are taking a policy decision instead of new recruitment of regular class IV posts the Government are sanctioning a consolidated amount as the "SHIPAI BHATTA the aided partly aided secondary and Higher secondary school. This "SHIPAI BHATTA" is sanctioned to every private aided school as per the ratio of the total enrollment of the pupil. A copy of the Government Resolution dated 11/12/2020 is annexed herewith as Exhibit-R-3.

                   Therefore, after introducing this new staffing pattern for class IV peon posts are now death cedar and the posts which are/will be vacant due to retirement or any reason are not available for further regular appointment.

                   11. I say and submit that, as the factual position explained above is evident the Petitioners are not entitled to any of the relief claimed in the present petition. This Respondent is not acting contrary to law as this Respondent just obeyed the dictates of law which overrules all the objections raised by the petitioners. Thus because of the above factual position, the direction and communication letter issued by this Respondent dated 27.10.2022 is just and proper.

                   In view of the above explanation, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass appropriate orders in the present petition in the interest of justice.

                   6.3. Ms. Kapre’s keen objection is concerning applicability of the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2013. She would submit that Petitioner No.3’s appointment can not be validated due to the staffing pattern introduced by the Government Resolution of 2013. She strenuously submits that as per the staffing pattern of 2013, only one post of Peon was sanctioned while two persons are working against sanctioned one post. She adds that the subject-matter appointment is made after issuance of the Government Resolution of 2013, and hence approval can not be granted the subject-matter appointment of the Petitioner No.3. She submits that the subsequent Government Resolution of 2015 directed status quo in respect of the Government Resolution of 2013, and hence it ought to be held that the staffing pattern introduced by the Government Resolution of 2013 be held to have hold field till next staffing patters of 2019 and 2020.

As such, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays to dismiss the Writ petition.

Discussion and Consideration:-

7. We heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties at length. While learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Kapre relied upon the various Government Resolutions, Mr. Bhavake demonstrated how the petitioners are not hit by the application of the said Government Resolutions. His main thrust of argument is on the inaction of the responsible officer, i.e. the Education Officer to act in accordance with the same Government Resolution on which the proposal is turned down. We deal with each objection recorded by the Education officer in the light of the arguments advanced by Mr. Bhavake, and the record produced before us.

8. Now, let’s see how the Petitioners meet each objection recorded by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad.

9. Compliance to the G.R. dated 06-02-2012:-

                   9.1 The subject-matter post of Peon was to fall vacant w.e.f. 01.09.2014 on account of earlier employee namely Mr. D.R.Kamble. Hence the School Management submitted an application to the Education Officer. The application sought (i) supply of suitable surplus candidates’ name, if any, and (ii) permission to fill up the subject-matter post by publishing an advertisement, in the event of non-availability of suitable surplus candidate. Copy of the said application is on record and it is in very clear terms. The copy bears acknowledgment by the office of the Education Officer. This was in compliance of the Government Resolution dated 06.02.2012. Text of the Government Resolution dated 06.02.2012 is reproduced below for ready reference:-

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

                   9.2. In the case in hand, despite the School Management moved to the Education Officer in accordance with the Government Resolution of 2012, the Education Officer didn’t respond to the submission. For any objection or suggestion, the Education Officer was supposed to respond the said application. His timely response was necessary. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, holds the entire data of suitable surplus candidates for various posts in the private schools falling under his realm. For the reasons best known to him only, the concerned Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad kept the application pending for indefinite period.

                   9.3. Tired of waiting for Education Officer’s response, the school management published an advertisement in a daily newspaper inviting applications from suitable candidates from public at large. The very object of putting a procedure to seek permission from the Education Officer before filling up a post is to give priority to adjust the suitable surplus candidates of whose data is in the custody of the Education Officer. If no such surplus suitable candidates are available, the Education Officer is supposed to grant permission to publish an advertisement in the local newspaper to maintain transparency in the selection process and to give opportunity to people at large to participate the selection procedure. There is no explanation from the respondent side why the Education Officer was sitting tight over the application for indefinite period.

                   9.4. Copy of the advertisement is evident on record. This shows that the School Management tried to maintain transparency in the selection process. Selection process was also participated by some other candidates pursuant to the advertisement. The Petitioner was appointed on the subject-matter post, as he was found more suitable.

                   9.5 The deliberate inaction on the part of the concerned Education Officer seriously frustrated the very object of the Government Resolution dated 06.02.2012 itself. The Education Officer has not disputed that the management applied for data of suitable surplus candidate and for publishing an advertisement if no such suitable surplus candidate is available. It is also a matter of fact the Education Officer has even not looked into the application, and yet in an absolute mechanical way raised the objection No.1.

                   9.6 We do not encourage the practice for the school managements to undertake selection process excepting the procedure laid down in the relevant Government Resolutions. But in the peculiar facts of the present case before us where the Management has complied every mandatory formality, and the authority kept the process lingering for indefinite period without rendering any reason, and where there is no element of fraud, misrepresentation of facts or manipulation of record, the employee may not be left to suffer. It must also be born in mind that the subject-matter post is of Class IV category.

                   9.7. Recently, this court at Aurangabad Bench while deciding Writ Petition no. 11172 of 2019 (Baliram Salunke Vs. State and ors) has observed as follows:-

                   15. Recently, this Court in similar set of facts in the matters of Sumedha Sushil Sawal and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2024 SCC Online Bom. 975, Vaishali Balkrushna Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2025 SCC Online Bom 1502, Nitin Bhanudas Waghmare Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2023 3 MhLJ 556 has taken a view that once it is found that the management sought permission to fill up the post and the Education Officer do not communicate either granting or rejecting the said permission within reasonable time, the management cannot be faulted with. This Court has also held that once it is found that the Education Officer failed to inform the Management about the number of surplus teachers waiting for appointments when the petitioner is appointed and the impugned order do not depict that the management was informed about availability of any surplus teacher, in that case it cannot be said that the management have committed any error in issuing an advertisement and filling up the posts.

                   16. The grounds raised in the affidavit in reply which do not find place in the impugned order cannot be considered for a simple reason that the Respondent No.2 cannot be allowed to supplement the reasons assigned in the impugned order by way of an affidavit in reply. The law in that regard is settled in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioners, reported in 1978(1) SCC 405, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that an order has to be judged on what is stated in the order and not on what is sought to be supplanted/improved by subsequent affidavit/s in support thereof.

                   17. Thus, we are not impressed with the contention raised by Respondent No.2 in affidavit in reply where Respondent No.2 is trying to supplement the reasons. In the light of consistent view taken by this Court (supra) and having adopted the said view, we hold that, the order passed by the Education Officer of refusing to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner is unsustainable, therefore we are inclined to allow the Writ Petition by passing following order… ”

As such, the subject-matter appointment can not be said illegal and in contravention of Government Resolution of 2012.

10. Delay in lodging the proposal:-

                   10.1. Truly there is delay in lodging the approval proposal. Petitioner’s appointment is of 01.09.2014, and yet the proposal was filed in the year 2022. There is controversy on facts on this issue. The petitioners submit that they attempted to submit the proposal from time to time, however the Education Officer didn’t accept it citing the reasons of ban. May it be, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition no. 9852 of 2022 in this court seeking directions to the Education Officer to accept the proposal and take a decision on time bound manner.

                   10.2. Obviously, the issue of delay had been before this court in the earlier round of litigation between the same parties. Considering that, the earlier directions were passed. In our view, mere delay must not be fatal to the proposal itself unless a strong case of fraud, misrepresentation of facts or manipulation of record is shown by the Education Officer to us. Such is not the case in hand. If the appointment is otherwise correct without involving the aforesaid three components, we feel that the delay must not come in the way of the petitioners.

                   10.3. We may refer to some observations made by this court in a case of Mrs. Rutuja Sachin Vasudeo @ (Ms. Rutuja Suryakant Bhise) and anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr., (Writ Petition No.1158 of 2023) decided on 24.11.2025. Paragraph No. 12 of the order reads as thus:

                   12. The learned A.G.P. pointed out that, since the Management had submitted the proposal belatedly, the Education Officer was justified in rejecting it. In our opinion, the purpose of submitting the proposal at the earliest is to ensure that the concerned employee is benefited by the salary grants as early as possible since the date of appointment. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that neither Petitioner No.1 nor Petitioner No.2 will raise any claim for interest on account of the delayed payment of admissible salary grants. The said statement is accepted as an undertaking to this Court.

The petitioners have made a statement that during the period of the date of appointment and the date of submission of proposal, the petitioners shall not claim any interest over the salary grant. We hold that the subject-matter proposal could not be turned down on account of delay as no element of fraud, misrepresentation of facts or manipulation of record has been revealed in causing the delay.

11. Non submission of certain documents (Ground Nos.3 to 5):-

                   11.1. This referes to objection as to non-submission of certain documents. Mr.Bhavake vehemently submitted that the Petitioners have submitted each and every document with the proposal. He would also invite our attention to the fact that those documents are even attached with the Writ Petition itself. This fact is evident and is not countered by the respondents. Once the documents are on record, there need no occasion to repeatedly submitting those.

12. Inconsistency with the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2013 :-

                   12.1. Petitioners submit that the staffing pattern of 2013 was never implemented. The objection is, staffing pattern showed only 1 post of peon, while 2 persons are working as peon. The petitioners submit that the subject-matter post had fallen vacant due to superannuation of earlier peon namely Mr. D.R.Kamble. The petitioners’ contention that D.R.Kamble’s post was sanctioned and reserved for Scheduled Caste and his services were approved by the then Education Officer, are not countered by the respondent authorities.

As such, it is obvious that the subject-matter post was already a sanctioned post as per the staffing pattern then prevailing. The Petitioner is inducted on the subject-matter post consequent to voluntary retirement of Mr.D.R.Kamble.

                   12.2. We need to re-iterate that the Petitioner Management while filed an application to the Education Officer on 01.07.2014 to inform about availability of suitable surplus candidate for the subject-matter post or to grant permission to initiate selection process, it was the prime duty of the concerned Education Officer to raise the objection. If initiation of selection process for the subject- matter post was contrary to the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2013, it was for the Education Officer to immediately inform the School Management in that regard. What we find that the concerned Education Officer merely sat over the application and didn’t respond the same. The anomaly if any, has occurred only due to irresponsible inaction on the part of the then Education Officer. We disapprove such conduct of the responsible authority.

                   12.3. We now take up for discussion, the most crucial issue of applicability of the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2013 and the applicability of the staffing pattern. For the sake of ready reference, the text of the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2013 is reproduced:-

                  

                  

                  

                   12.5. The Government Resolution of 2015 at the outset records that there had been huge demurs by individuals, various organizations of Teaching and Non-teaching employees in the private schools against the Government Resolution of 2013. As such the effect of the Government Resolution of 2013 was freezed. A committee was constituted to reform and improve the contents of the Government Resolution of 2013. Ban was ordered for appointments until further orders of the State Government.

                   12.6. Now we must see the further developments in respect of the reforms in the staffing pattern in the private schools post Government Resolution of 2015. Consequent to the 2015 Government Resolution, the Committee advanced some suggestions for a new policy.

                   12.7. Accordingly, the State Government introduced another Government Resolution on 28.01.2019 by which new staffing pattern was introduced in view of the suggestions advanced by the Committee constituted under the Government Resolution of 2015. However, this Government Resolution dated 28.01.2019 specifically excluded staffing pattern for Class IV category employees in the private schools. It was further stated in the Government Resolution of 2019, that the staffing pattern for Class IV was to be separately provided.

For the sake of convenience, the Government Resolution dated 28.01.2019 is reproduced as follows:

                  

                  

                   “LANGUAGE”

                   12.8. Accordingly, the staffing pattern for Class IV category was introduced vide subsequent Government Resolution dated 11.12.2020, which is reproduced as follows for ready reference:

                   “LANGUAGE”

                   “LANGUAGE”

                   “LANGUAGE”

                   “LANGUAGE”

                   12.9. The plain reading of the Government Resolution of 2020 unequivocally clarifies that it is operational w.e.f. the date of its issuance i.e. w.e.f. 11.12.2020. The staffing pattern for Class IV introduced substantial changes in the previous staffing patterns, and it was issued only after approval by Finance Department that was accorded on 22.05.2019. It is expressly mentioned therein the new policy is brought into operation superseding the all-earlier policies and directions. The Government Resolution of 2015 has expressly kept Government Resolution of 2013 in abeyance ab initio.

                   12.10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader made every sincere attempt to convince us that the status quo imposed by the Government Resolution of 2015 meant that the staffing pattern of 2013 shall remain in operation till new staffing pattern was introduced. That’s why it is her foremost contention that the subject- matter appointment post issuance of 2013 Government Resolution cannot be approved.

                   12.11. For reasons to express, we do not approve this argument anymore. The preface of the 2015 Government Resolution itself shows that due to heavy protest,objections and dissatisfaction recorded by the stakeholders, the State Government kept in abeyance everything in respect to the staffing pattern introduced by Government Resolution of 2013. It goes without saying that basic cause to issue the 2015 Government Resolution, i.e. the effect and operation of the 2013 policy was clearly and expressly was not to be acted upon. The government resolved to appoint a committee to rethink on improving the parameters of new staffing pattern. A committee of experts was appointed and it was directed that until the State government applies new policy in the light of the proposed recommendations of the Committee, no appointments were to be made on new or vacant posts. The new staffing patterns were introduced in 2019 and 2020 (Class-IV) which clearly superseded the earlier policies.

                   12.12. It is not at acceptable that the word “LANGUAGE” used in 2015 Government Resolution in respect of Government Resolution of 2013, preordained that the staffing pattern sought to be introduced by the Government Resolution of 2013 holds field until new policy comes in force. Paragraph No.1 of the 2015 Government Resolution must be read following its preface. We have no room for doubt in our minds that the directions “LANGUAGE” used in 2015 Government Resolution mean and operate to keep the staffing pattern 2013 in abeyance ab initio till new policy is framed in the light of the Committee recommendations.

                   12.13. Under these circumstances, holding that the policy of 2013 Government Resolution remained in force since its inception till issuance of 2019 and 2020 policies or at least till issuance of the Government Resolution of 2015, would be absolutely illogical. Rather we have reservations on keeping an absolute ban on appointments in the schools for five years i.e. 2015 to 2020. The appointments of teaching staff in schools are only and only for the educational career of the students. Appointments of non-teaching staff are in the sense at par, for the reason that it’s the most required support staff without whom the schools can not function. Employees in services are bound to superannuate during this period. Posts are bound to become vacant. While keeping in abeyance the staffing policy of 2013 and waiting for new one, the State Government ought to have applied rational and coherent mind while imposing such ban.

                   12.14. We are of considered view to hold that until the new staffing patters were introduced in 2019 and 2020, the last staffing policy introduced vide Government Resolution dated 25.11.2005 was holding field. Thus, the conundrum created by the various Government Resolutions from 2013 to 2019 & 2020 (IV category) over the staffing pattern and the fate of the appointments made in the mean period, stands solved. Staffing pattern sought to be introduced by Government Resolution of 2013 lost its effect ab initio in view of Government Resolution of 2015. Meaning thereby, the earlier staffing pattern of 2005 stood superseded by the staffing pattern of 2019 (for all categories excluding Class IV) and by the staffing pattern of 2020 (for Class IV category), both operational prospectively from their respective dates of issuance.

                   12.15. The new staffing pattern for Class IV employees is operational only w.e.f. 11.12.2020. It is trite law that a Government Resolution, a statute, an amendment is not retrospectively applicable unless expressly provided. Hence we reject the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader based on the objection recorded by the Education Officer that Government Resolution of 2013 i.e. dated 23.10.2013 disqualifies the proposal for approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.3 which is made on 31.08.2014.

13. Objection No. 7 in the impugned order :-

                   13.1. Non applicability of Government Resolution dated 23.10.2013 to the present case is already answered by us in above paragraphs. So far as other Government Resolutions dated 12.02.2015, 28.01.2019 and 11.12.2020 are referred in the impugned order at objection No.7, those being subsequent to Petitioner’s appointment shall not hit petitioner’s appointment and approval. In fact if those Government Resolutions read sequentially and meticulously, it would show that the subject-matter appointment was not in contravention of any band or staffing pattern respectively contained in either Government Resolution of 2015, 2019 and 2020.

                   13.2. The issue of non applicability of Government Resolutions issued subsequent to appointments has been exhaustively dealt by this Court at Principal Seat in the case of Kini Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors., (Writ Petition No.10201 of 2022); and at Kolhapur Circuit Bench in the case of Mrs. Rutuja Sachin Vasudeo @ (Ms. Rutuja Suryakant Bhise) and anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr., (Writ Petition No.1158 of 2023) decided on 24.11.2025.

                   13.3. As regards to the ban imposed by Government Resolution dated 10.06.2010 is concerned, the Government Resolution itself speaks that it was only for 1 year w.e.f. 10.06.2010. Vide another Government Resolution dated 16.07.2011, the ban imposed on 10.06.2010 was extended only for further one year. The petitioner is appointed on 31.08.2014. Ms. Kapre, learned Assistant Government Pleader fairly agrees that on the date of petitioner’s appointment no ban was operational.

14. Conclusion:

Thus, what we find that there are no objections as regards to any fraud, misrepresentation of facts or manipulation of record while effecting the subject-matter appointment. The Education Officer has erred in applying the staffing pattern of 2013 which never became operational. New staffing pattern is introduced in 2020 while Petitioner No.3 is appointed way back in 2014. On the date of subject-matter appointment, no ban was operational against the subject-matter appointment. To conclude, we hold that:

                   14.1 The delay in lodging an approval proposal shall not be fatal to the proposal unless its shown that there were elements of fraud, misrepresentation of facts or manipulation of record in the subject-matter appointment. The Education Officer could not have turned down the proposal on account of delay;

                   14.2 The Management could not be justified in taking exception to the procedure of seeking permission from the Education Officer to fill up the vacant post; but in the peculiar facts of this case and for the reasons recorded above, the inaction on the part of the concerned Education Officer to discharge his duty, the subject- matter appointment cannot be invalidated;

                   14.3 Unless the respondent authorities could demonstrate the elements of fraud, misrepresentation of facts, or manipulation of record; in the peculiar facts of the case the Education Officer is not justified to use his own inaction to decide the permission application, as a tool to invalidate the subject-matter proposal;

                   14.4. The ban and riders imposed by the Government Resolutions issued post subject-matter appointments shall not operate retrospectively.

                   14.5. Government Resolution dated 23.10.2013 does not disqualify Petitioner No.3’s approval proposal pursuant to his appointment dated 31.08.2014, which is governed by the Government Resolution dated 25.11.2005.

15. For the reasons recorded above, we are satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for our interference, and the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, we pass following order:-

(i) The Writ Petition is partly allowed;

(ii) The impugned order dated the order dated 27.10.2022 passed by respondent no.5 – Education Officer(Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur, is quashed and set aside;

(iii) The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur, shall grant approval to the Petitioner No.3’s appointment as Peon within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of a copy of this order. The salary grants shall be issued to the Petitioner No.3’s appointment w.e.f. the date of his appointment without any interest thereon within a period of four weeks thereafter.

(iv) Rule made absolute in above terms. Writ Petition stands disposed. No costs.