| |
CDJ 2026 BHC 312
|
| Court : In the High Court of Bombay at Kolhapur |
| Case No : Writ Petition No. 12288 of 2022 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.G. AVACHAT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT B. KADETHANKAR |
| Parties : Mahadev Balkrishna Dhamange Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mumbai & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Prashant Bhavake, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R5, T.J. Kapre, A.G.P., R6 & R7, Utkarsh Desai, Advocate. |
| Date of Judgment : 06-02-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Comparative Citation:
2026 BHC-KOL 1124,
|
| Judgment :- |
|
Oral Judgment:
Ajit B. Kadethankar, J.
1. SUBJECT MATTER:
The Petitioner - a Junior Clerk working in a private school received Education Officer’s approval to his appointment dated 16th November 2013. But the approval is made effective only from the date of new staffing pattern dated 7th March 2019. The exclusion of approval period is citing a ban on appointments imposed in 2015 owing to change in staffing pattern.
2. Heard Mr. Bhavake, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Ms. Kapre, learned Assistant Government Pleader. for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5- State and Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7- School Management.
3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Considering the subject matter of the Petition, we heard the respective parties for final disposal of the Writ Petition with their consent.
4. Facts in brief:-
For the sake of convenience, sequence of some important dates and terminology used herein is necessary to be described.
Dates
| Description
| 25-11-2005
| The Government Resolution dated 25-11-2005 was the last working staffing pattern before latest staffing patterns of 2019 and 2020 are enforced. Its known as staffing pattern of 2005.
| 23-10-2013
| The Government Resolution dated 23-10-2013 sought to replace earlier staffing pattern of 2005. However, it was kept in abeyance vide subsequent Government Resolution dated 12-02-2015.
| 01-11-2013
| Respondent Management published an advertisement in daily newspaper to fill up the subject-matter sanctioned post. This post had fallen vacant due to promotion of earlier Junior clerk Mr. R.D. Taralekar.
| 16-11-2013
| The School Management, after due process resolved to appoint the Petitioner on the subject-matter post.
| 18-11-2013
| The Petitioner joined the subject-matter post.
| 16-07-2021
| A proposal seeking approval was filed by the School and the Management with the concerned Education Officer seeking approval to Petitioner’s appointment.
| 12-02-2015
| The State Government issued this Government Resolution dated 12-02-2015 and kept in abeyance the effect and operation of Government Resolution dated 23-10-2013. A ban was imposed on all appointments until new staffing patterns come into play.
| 28-01-2019
| A new staffing pattern was introduced by the State government as per Expert Committee’s recommendations, for employees of private school in the State (Excluding IV category).
Its known as staffing pattern of 2019.
| 07-03-2019
| The staffing pattern introduced by Government Resolution dated 28-01-2019 was brought into operation with some specifications as regards to absorption of surplus non teaching employees and filling up vacant posts.
| 11-11-2020
| Government Resolution dated 11-11-2020 introduced new staffing pattern for Class IV category employees in private Schools pursuant to the recommendations of Expert Committee’s report. Its known as staffing pattern of 2020.
| 09-08-2021
| Impugned order passed by the Education Officer thereby granting approval to Petitioner’s appointment only w.e.f. 17-03-2019 i.e. new staffing pattern introduced vide Government Resolution dated 28-01- 2013.
|
4.1 The facts in the case are almost uncontroverted. The only issue that arises for consideration is the interpretation of some Government Resolutions, applicability of staffing patterns and the ban imposed by the Government Resolution dated 12th February 2015.
4.2 The Petitioner holds the qualification of B.Com, M.B.A. As such he is fit to be appointed as Junior Clerk. In the year 2013, a sanctioned post of Junior Clerk in the Respondent No.7-School run by the Respondent No.6-Management had fallen vacant on account of promotion of one Mr. R.D. Taralekar (hereinafter referred as the (subject-matter post”).
Here, it is pertinent to note that the post on which Mr. R.D. Taralekwar was working, happened to be a sanctioned post as per the staffing pattern of 2005 which was operational.
4.3 Accordingly, the School Management conducted a selection procedure and the Petitioner came to be appointed on the subject matter post by the Respondent No.6-Management vide Order dated 16th November 2013.
4.4 These facts are not in dispute. In due course, the school Management submitted a proposal to the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur seeking approval to Petitioner’s appointment on the subject-matter post of Junior Clerk.
4.5 On 9th August 2021, the Education Officer granted approval to the Petitioner’s appointment. However, the approval is made effective with effect from 7th March 2019. As such, the stipulation in order dated 9th August 2021 which excluded approval period ‘with effect of from the date of appointment till 7th March 2019’ is the cause of action for the Petitioner to file the present Writ Petition.
5. Petitioner’s arguments :
5.1 Mr. Bhavake, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would make following submissions in brief :
(i) There is no illegality in the Petitioner’s appointment.
(ii) There is no dispute as regards to the status of the subject matter post i.e. whether it was sanctioned in the staffing pattern or not. It was admittedly sanctioned already as per staffing pattern introduced by Government Resolution dated 25th November 2005. (hereinafter referred as “staffing pattern of 2005” for the sake of convenience).
(iii) The Education Officer is in agreement that the Petitioner’s appointment is as per the law and the procedure. Objection is not raised by the Education Officer to the appointment dated 16th November 2013, but the reference is given to ban imposed by the Government Resolution of 2015 which is subsequent to Petitioner’s appointment.
(iv) Refusal to the approval during the period of 18th November 2013 (date of his joining) till 7th March 2019 (new staffing pattern) cannot be sustained for the reason that at the time of Petitioner’s appointment, there was no ban on the appointment.
(v) To concluded, Mr. Prashant Bhavake submits that the staffing pattern sought to be applied in 2013, was never implemented. Hence also it can not be said that the ban applied by Government Resolution of 2015 was applicable to Petitioner’s appointment which was made subsequent to publication of Government Resolution dated 23rd October 2013.
As such, the reason for the impugned exclusion rests on such facts which didn’t exist anytime.
5.2 As such, Mr. Bhavake prayed to allow the Writ Petition and requests to issue appropriate directions to the Respondents- Authorities.
6. Respondent’s arguments:-
6.1 Mr. Desai, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.6 & 7, i.e. the School Management and the School, echoes the contentions of the Petitioner and prays for appropriate directions to the Respondents- Authorities. He submits that the subject-matter post Mr. Taralekar held was already a sanctioned post as per the then prevailing staffing pattern of 2005, and that in no case the said sanctioned was disturbed.
6.2 Ms. Kapre, learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the approach of the Education Officer may not be taken as adversary to the Petitioner’s appointment. She would fairly agree that the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad has not objected Petitioner’s appointment, but the objection is about the ban imposed by Government Resolution of 2015. She continues to submit that the subject-matter appointment was made after introduction of the Government Resolution dated 23rd October 2013.
6.3 Ms. Kapre would submit that in 2013 the State Government sought to introduce new staffing pattern, following which in 2015 ban on any appointment was imposed by the State Government. She submits that the Education Officer is justified in granting the approval from the date of new staffing pattern, as there was ban in the mean period. As such, she prays to dismiss the Petition.
7. Discussion and consideration :
7.1 With the able assistance of the Ld. Counsel for the parties and the Ld. Assistant Government Pleader, we have gone through the pleadings and the annexures that are relied by them. During the courses of arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the parties and the Ld. Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the issue is only in respect of the applicable staffing pattern. Accordingly, we deal with the matter.
7.2 We note that the Petitioner was appointed on 16th November 2013, and joined the post w.e.f. 18th November 2013. Mr. Bhavake, submits that the selection process had in fact been initiated even prior to 23rd October 2013. That, the Management accordingly published an advertisement on 1st November 2013. He submitted that since the selection process has begun prior to issuance of the G.R. dated 23rd October 2013, Petitioner’s appointment must not be questioned as has been held by this court in number of matters.
7.3 Since there is nothing before us to show when the Management has approached to the Education Officer under Section 5(1) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Considerations of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 prior to 23rd October 2013, we refrain ourselves from dealing on that aspect as to whether Government Resolution dated 23rd October 2013 affects the selection procedure that started before its issuance.
7.4 We have gone through the reply affidavit tendered by the Shri Ravindranath Ghaugale, the Education Officer(Secondary), Zilla Parishad Kolhapur. Paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the reply affidavit doesn’t not depict any objection as to process u/s 5(1) of the MEPS Act 1977. It candidly says that since the staffing pattern was made applicable to the subject-matter post vide Government Resolution of 2019, and hence from the date of new staffing pattern, the approval is granted.
7.5 The last staffing pattern that was holding field was of 2005 which was introduced by Government Resolution dated 25th November 2005. By Government Resolution dated 23rd October 2013, the State Government sought to introduce a new staffing pattern for employees of private schools. However, by a subsequent Government Resolution dated 12th February 2015 the implementation and operation of the said staffing pattern were kept in abeyance ab initio owing to heavy protest and objection raised by educational institutions, School employees’ associations, objections raised people’s representatives. It was resolved that a Committee of experts shall be appointed for formation of new staffing pattern and till then everything concerning Government Resolution of 2013 was kept in abeyance. In view of proposed formation of Expert Committee, a ban on fresh appointments was imposed by Government Resolution of 2015 until new staffing pattern comes into existence.
7.6 Ultimately, by Government Resolution dated 28th January 2019, the State Government introduced a revised staffing pattern for employees of private schools in the State, excluding the Class IV category. Thereafter, by a separate Government Resolution dated 11th December 2020, a new staffing pattern was introduced for the Class IV category as well.
7.7 It is pertinent to note that the approvals as per the new staffing pattern introduced vide Government Resolution of 2019 were brought into force vide Government Resolution dated 7th March 2019.
7.8 The effect and consequences of the Government Resolutions dated 23rd October 2013 and 12th February 2015, as well as the subsequent Government Resolutions introducing new staffing patterns in the years 2019 and 2020, has been extensively considered and discussed by this Court in the case of Vikas Shikshan Mandal Savarde (Budruk) Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.(Writ Petition No. 6812 of 2024, dated 2nd February 2026 (Circuit Bench at Kolhapur)). The relevant paragraphs, being Nos. 12.3 to 12.15, are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
“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:-
12.4. The Government Resolution dated 23.10.2013 can not be read in isolation without referring to subsequent Government Resolution dated 12.02.2015 which reads as follows:
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:
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:
“TABLES”
“TABLES”
“TABLES”
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 “जैसे थे” 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.”
7.9 This Court has after considering all the G.R.s concerning staffing patterns in the private schools in Vikas Shikshan Mandal Savarde (Budruk) (supra) has held as follows :
“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.”
7.10 The staffing pattern in operation pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 25th November 2005 continued to hold the field and remained the only governing staffing pattern until the introduction of the staffing patterns of 2019 and 2020 ( for class IV).
7.11 As such, this Petition deserves to be allowed. We hold that the Petitioner’s appointment cannot be termed as under any ban or prohibited by virtue of any Government Resolution. We reiterate that the status quo terminology used in the Government Resolution of 2015, doesn’t mean that the Government Resolution of 2013 governed and affected the appointments and approvals processed and issued during 23-10-2013 till 12-02-2015. (Emph. Para 12.12 in Vikas Mandal case [supra]).
7.12 Before parting, we deem it appropriate to record our finding that the Education Officer has granted approval to the Petitioner’s appointment since 2019, i.e. in accordance with the new staffing pattern. The Petitioner’s appointment of 2013 is not invalidated by the Education Officer for any other reason. Education Officer’s objection is regarding the ban imposed by Government Resolution of 2015. Prima facie it may appear to be a bit obscure. But then it requires no further elaboration to hold that the post never lost its status as a ‘sanctioned post’ even under the subsequent staffing pattern of 2019, and that’s why the Education Officer granted approval at least from 2019 without invalidating the appointment.
7.13 As such the impugned refusal to give approval to the Petitioner’s appointment from the date of his appointment, as ordered in the impugned order dated 9th August 2021 passed by the Education Officer cannot be sustained. As such the Education Officer needs to modify the approval order.
7.14 Hence, we pass the following order :-
ORDER:
A) The Writ Petition stands allowed.
B) The impugned Order dated 9th August 2021 is quashed and set-aside to the extent that it excludes approval to the Petitioner’s appointment with effect from 18th November 2013 (joining date) till 7th March 2019.
C) The Education Officer is directed to issue a modified approval order to the Petitioner’s appointment w.e.f. Petitioner’s date of appointment i.e. w.e.f. 18th November 2019 on the subject-matter post; and to issue honorarium and salary grants as are applicable, in the light of the findings rendered supra.
D) Rule made absolute in above terms. Writ Petition stands disposed of.
|
| |
