Bombay High Court
Swapnil Sambhaji Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 4 August, 2025
Author: R. G. Avachat
Bench: R. G. Avachat
2025:BHC-AUG:20613-DB
2-WP-11364-2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
2 WRIT PETITION NO. 11364 OF 2022
Swapnil Sambhaji Gaikwad ....Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
Through Its Principal Secretary
And Others .....Respondents
.....
Mr. V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. A. R. Kale, Addl. GP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3
Mr. M. P. Tripathi, Advocate for Respondent No.6
.....
CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT &
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
DATE : 04.08.2025
PER COURT :
1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, the
learned Addl. G. P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned
Advocate for Respondent No.6. None for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
2. Impugned in this Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is the order dated 28/01/2022, passed by
Respondent No.2 - Deputy Director, cancelling the approvals
granted by Respondent No.3 - Education Officer to the appointment
of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was appointed on 21/12/2013 as
Assistant Teacher on the unaided post on the open seat. The
Management submitted a proposal for approval of his appointment
to the Respondent No.3 - Education Officer on 24/03/2014. The
Respondent No.3 - Education Officer gave the approval.
Subsequently, in 2016, the Petitioner was granted the approval as
1
2-WP-11364-2022.odt
the permanent teacher. The Respondent No.6 filed a Complaint
with the Respondent No.3 - Education Officer that, the appointment
of the Petitioner was illegal. The Respondent No.2 - Deputy
Director conducted an inquiry on the Complaint of Respondent
No.6. The Petitioner was heard during the course of the said
inquiry. By the impugned order, the Respondent No.2 - Deputy
Director cancelled the initial approval and also the permanent
approval of the Petitioner on the following grounds :
(I) The appointment was not made from the camp of Respondent
No.3 - Education Officer.
(II) Despite there being a backlog of reserved post, the
appointment was made on the open seat.
(III) There was no permission from the Respondent No.3 -
Education Officer for the said appointment.
(IV) The name and date of the news paper, in which an
Advertisement was given, was missing.
3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that,
the Respondent No.6 was a stranger and as per the Government
Resolutions dated 03/12/1958 and 26/12/2019, Complaints made
by the strangers were not maintainable. He further submits that,
the grounds, on which the approval was cancelled, are not
sustainable, for the reason that, the appointment was made when
the camp was taken by the Respondent No.3, the roaster was
approved and there was no backlog of reserved posts, the
appointment of the Petitioner was on the open seat, and the
Management had sent a communication to the Respondent No.3 -
Education Officer seeking permission to publish an Advertisement
before filling up the post. He further submits that, the name and
date of the newspaper, in which the Advertisement was published,
2
2-WP-11364-2022.odt
was very much on the said newspaper. He submits that, in
identical matter, this Court had set aside such order with heavy
cost on the Complainant. Hence, this Petition be allowed.
4. The Petition is vehemently opposed by the learned
Advocate for Respondent No.6. He submits that, he was not the
stranger and was part of the Management, which runs the School,
where the Petitioner was working. He further submits that, despite
there was backlog of reserved post, the Petitioner came to be
appointed. He further submits that, the grounds, on which, the
Petitioner's approval has been cancelled, are appropriate and
therefore, after hearing the Petitioner, the same is passed and no
interfere is called for. In support of his contention, he relied on the
order of this Court in Writ Petition No.10741/2014 decided on
06/02/2019, wherein, though the post of reserved category was
vacant, the appointment of the open candidate was made on the
reserved post and the order of cancelling the approval was not
interfered with. He submits that, this Petition be dismissed.
5. It is submitted by the learned Addl. G. P. that, the
impugned order is self-speaking and is based on sound grounds and
passed after hearing all the sides. He submits that, no interference
is called for in the impugned order.
6. We have perused the papers on record. As far as the
objection that the Respondent No.6 was the stranger, the same
melts down in view of the specific contention of the Petitioner in
Paragraph No.5 of the Petition that, Respondent No.6 was the
Member of the Managing Committee of Respondent No.4 -
Management as per Schedule-I of the Trust. Thus, the ground of
non maintainability of Complaint does not survive.
3
2-WP-11364-2022.odt
7. As far as Ground No.(I) that, the appointment was not
made from the camp of Respondent No.3 - Education Officer, the
copy of outward register from the office of Respondent No.3 -
Education Officer shows the name of Petitioner and the date as
29/03/2014. There is no dispute in respect of the copy of the said
outward register. This material thus clearly indicates that, this
ground has no legs to stand.
8. As regards the Ground No.(II) that, the appointment
was made on the open seat, the copy of approved roaster dated
28/05/2013 shows that, there was no backlog of reserved post.
Undisputedly, the appointment of the Petitioner was on the open
seat and the Petitioner belong to the open category. Therefore, the
said Judgment relied upon by the learned Advocate for Respondent
No.6 will not be applicable to the case at hand and this ground also
falls down.
9. As regards the Ground No.(III) that, there was no
permission from the Respondent No.3 - Education Officer before
filling up the post, the copy of communication dated 16/10/2013,
having stamp of the Office of Respondent No.3 - Education Officer
shows that, the Head Master had sought permission to issue an
advertisement to fill-up one vacant post of the Assistant Teacher.
There is no dispute in respect of this communication. Therefore,
the said ground also falls down.
10. As regards the Ground No.(IV) that, there was no name
and date on the news paper, a typed copy of the said advertisement
is on record at Exhibit - A [Page No.21]. The learned Advocate for
the Petitioner tenders across the bar copy of the said
advertisement. The same is taken on record. It shows the name,
4
2-WP-11364-2022.odt
date of news paper and advertisement. Therefore, it is clear that,
before appointment of the Petitioner, the post was advertised in the
news paper.
11. There is no dispute that, after the appointment of the
Petitioner, the proposal was sent for approval to the Respondent
No.3 - Education Officer and Respondent No.3 - Education Officer
had granted the approval, initially as the Assistant Teacher and
thereafter, as the Permanent Teacher. This shows that, the
Respondent No.3 - Education Officer must have granted the
approval by following due procedure. In this view of the matter,
the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, the
following order:
ORDER
(a) The impugned order dated 28/01/2022, passed by
Respondent No.2, is quashed and set aside.
(b) The Writ Petition stands disposed off accordingly.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [R. G. AVACHAT, J.]
Sameer/August-2025
Signed by: Md. Sameer Q.
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
