Oral Judgment:
Ajit B. Kadethankar, J.
1. Considering the nature of prayers in the petitions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the petitions finally.
2. Consequent to superannuation of one Mr. Rajnaal and one Mr. Lalkot, an application was filed by the petitioner School Management on 5th October 2012 to the Education Officer, (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur seeking permission to fill up two posts of Junior Clerk. On 8th October 2012, the Education Officer was pleased to grant permission to the School Management to fill up both the vacancies pertinently mentioning that it would be filled up in the light of the Policy dated 25th November 2005. For the sake of convenience, we reproduce the contents of the permission dated 8th October 2012 as follows :-
3. It is not disputed that by due process of law, the petitioners were appointed on the posts of Junior Clerk vide order dated 23rd November 2012. On 19th January 2022, the Education Officer issued approval order to the petitioners’ services, however observing that the approval of salary grant shall be payable w.e.f. 8th September 2019. The gist of the order is that since the modified staffing pattern was framed by the State Government on 28th January 2019, the period in between 23rd November 2012 to 8th September 2019 shall be excluded from the salary grant, to be payable by the Zilla Parishad.
4. As such, the petitioners are aggrieved by this direction and exclusion of this period for salary grant to the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were appointed way back in 2012 and it was specifically as per the permission, the appointments were in consonance with the staffing pattern of 2005. He would further submit that since the appointments were made as per the prevailing staffing pattern, the exclusion of period for grant in aid impugned in the present petition needs to be quashed and set aside; and directions needs to be given to the Education Officer to issue the salary grant w.e.f. the date of appointment of the petitioners.
6. Learned AGP would submit that in 2013 a new staffing policy was introduced by the Government of Maharashtra and in 2015 ban was imposed by the Government on further appointments in the private school. Learned AGP would further submit that since new staffing pattern was introduced in 2019 itself, the salary grant shall be applicable only from the date of new staffing pattern.
7. We have heard both the learned Counsel at length. We have perused the record. It is not disputed that the Education Officer has granted permission to fill up the subject matter posts pertinently in light of the staffing pattern of 2005. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners’ posts are approved as per the staffing pattern of 2005. The petitioners are appointed in 2012. The staffing pattern of 2005 was in existence and the subject matter post was accordingly approved. G.R. of 2013 sought to introduce a new staffing pattern. However, the staffing pattern of 2013 was never implemented. The G.R. of 2015 kept the effect and operation of 2013 G.R. in abeyance ab initio. In 2019, new staffing patter was introduced, which obviously has prospective effect, and has under staffing pattern of 2005 nothing to do with appointments made under staffing pattern of 2005. If this is so, then in our considered opinion, the subsequent developments in the Government Resolutions of 2013, 2015 as also or 2019 shall have no effect on the appointments of the petitioners.
8. While deciding the scope of the Government Resolutions of 2013, 2015, 2019 and 2020 particularly about staffing pattern, this court is exhaustively rendered its findings in its judgment and order in case of Vikas Shikshan Mandal & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. passed in Writ Petition No. 6812 of 2024, dated 2nd February 2026. The relevant observations are as follows :-
“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:-
12.7. 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:
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 “जैसे थे” 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.”
9. Therefore, we find that the impugned order needs to be quashed and set aside and the Education Officer needs to be directed to release the salary grant to the petitioners from the date of appointments of the petitioners.
10. The Education Officer accepts that petitioners’ appointments are valid and legal, but restricts grant in aid. We find no logic in passing the impugned order whereby the period from petitioners’ date of appointments and the issuance of G.R. of 2019 is excluded from grant in aid.
11. Accordingly, we allow the Writ Petitions by passing the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The impugned order dated 19th January 2022 passed by respondent No.4 is quashed and set aside.
(ii) The Education Officer shall grant approval to the petitioner No.1 on the posts of Junior Clerk in regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of their appointments and shall release the salary grants accordingly.
12. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions stand disposed of.
