Bombay High Court
Sanjaykumar Wamanrao Zade vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Department ... on 9 September, 2025
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: M.S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:8857-DB
Judgment 1 913wp7700.22+.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 7700/2022
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7697/2022
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7701/2022
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7696/2022
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8003/2022
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7970/2022
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7698/2022
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 7699/2022
WRIT PETITION NO. 7700/2022
Dinesh Krushnarao Kohare,
Aged about 48 years, Occ.
Service, R/o. Utkarsh Colony,
Wajurkar Layout, Karla Road,
Wardha, District Wardha
442001 .....PETITIONER(S)
// VERSUS //
(1) State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of
Education, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32
..𝓐..
Judgment 2 913wp7700.22+.odt
(2) Maharashtra State Secondary
and Higher Secondary Board,
Through its Chairman, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur, Civil Lines,
Nagpur 440001
(3) Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur
(4) Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Wardha
(5) Wardha Education Society,
Through its President, Wardha,
C/o. New English High School
and Junior College, Wardha
(6) New English High School and .
Junior College, Through its
Principal, Wardha
(7) Dnyanendra Vishwanath
Muneshwar,
Aged about 43 years, Occ.
Service, R/o. 33, Bapatwadi,
Vikramsheela Nagar Road,
Wardha 442003
....RESPONDENT(S)
..𝓐..
Judgment 3 913wp7700.22+.odt
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7697/2022
Sau. Pushpa Sanjayrao Dhande .
(Chaudhari),
Aged about 51 years, Occ.
Service, R/o. C/o. Sanjayrao
Dhande, Behind Maganwadi,
Near Goras Bhandar, Wardha,
District Wardha 442001 ....PETITIONER(S)
// VERSUS //
(1) State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of
Education, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32
(2) Maharashtra State Secondary
and Higher Secondary Board,
Through its Chairman, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur, Civil Lines,
Nagpur 440001
(3) Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur
(4) Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Wardha
..𝓐..
Judgment 4 913wp7700.22+.odt
(5) Wardha Education Society,
Through its President, Wardha,
C/o. New English High School
and Junior College, Wardha
(6) New English High School and .
Junior College, Through its
Principal, Wardha
(7) Dnyanendra Vishwanath
Muneshwar,
Aged about 43 years, Occ.
Service, R/o. 33, Bapatwadi,
Vikramsheela Nagar Road,
Wardha 442003
....RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7701/2022
Shailesh Rameshkumar Dave,
Aged about 51 years, Occ.
Service, R/o. 28, Mohini Nagar,
Behind Arti Talkies, Wardha,
District Wardha
.....PETITIONER(S)
// VERSUS //
..𝓐..
Judgment 5 913wp7700.22+.odt
(1) State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of
Education, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32
(2) Maharashtra State Secondary
and Higher Secondary Board,
Through its Chairman, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur, Civil Lines,
Nagpur 440001
(3) Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur
(4) Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Wardha
(5) Wardha Education Society,
Through its President, Wardha,
C/o. New English High School
and Junior College, Wardha
(6) New English High School and .
Junior College, Through its
Principal, Wardha
..𝓐..
Judgment 6 913wp7700.22+.odt
(7) Dnyanendra Vishwanath
Muneshwar, Aged about 43
years, Occ. Service, R/o. 33,
Bapatwadi, Vikramsheela Nagar
Road, Wardha 442003
....RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7696/2022
Mangala Vasantrao Bhoyar,
Aged about 53 years, Occ.
Service, R/o. C/o. Shri
Pramodrao Pawade, Sharada
Nagar, Near Yashodeep
Convent, Wardha, District
Wardha 442001 .....PETITIONER(S)
// VERSUS //
(1) State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of
Education, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32
(2) Maharashtra State Secondary
and Higher Secondary Board,
Through its Chairman, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur, Civil Lines,
Nagpur 440001
..𝓐..
Judgment 7 913wp7700.22+.odt
(3) Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur
(4) Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Wardha
(5) Wardha Education Society,
Through its President, Wardha,
C/o. New English High School
and Junior College, Wardha
(6) New English High School and .
Junior College, Through its
Principal, Wardha
(7) Dnyanendra Vishwanath
Muneshwar,
Aged about 43 years, Occ.
Service, R/o. 33, Bapatwadi,
Vikramsheela Nagar Road,
Wardha 442003
....RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8003/2022
Sanjay S/o Madhukarrao
Bamanpalliwar, Aged about 51
years, Occ. Service, R/o. Flat No.
201, Laxmi Apartments, Karla
Road, Wardha, District Wardha .....PETITIONER(S)
..𝓐..
Judgment 8 913wp7700.22+.odt
// VERSUS //
(1) State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Department of Education
Sports, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
(2) The Office of the Directorate of
Education,
Through its Director, Pune-1
(3) The Office Divisional Deputy
Director, Through its Deputy
Director, Nagpur Division,
Nagpur
(4) Maharashtra State Secondary
and Higher Secondary Board,
Through its Chairman, Nagpur
Divisional Board, Civil Lines,
Nagpur 440001
(5) The Zilla Parishad, Wardha,
Through its Education Officer
(Secondary)
..𝓐..
Judgment 9 913wp7700.22+.odt
(6) Wardha Education Society,
Through its Secretary, Wardha,
District Wardha
(7) New English High School and
Junior College, Through its
Principal, Wardha, District
Wardha .....RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7970/2022
Sou. Sunita Rajendra Lule,
Aged about 64 years, R/o. Flat
No. 604, Ankur Sahanivas, Plot
No. 141, Sneh Sanvardhak
Society, Thengdi Hall,
Jaiprakash Nagar, Khamla,
Nagpur .....PETITIONER(S)
// VERSUS //
(1) State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Department of Education
Sports, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
..𝓐..
Judgment 10 913wp7700.22+.odt
(2) Office of the Accountant
General (A&E)-II, Maharashtra
through its Assistant
Accountant General/Senior
Accounts Officer, Pension
Branch Office, Nagpur 440001
(3) The Office of the Directorate of
Education, Through its
Director, Pune-1
(4) The Office Divisional Deputy
Director, Through its Deputy
Director, Nagpur Division,
Nagpur
(5) Maharashtra State Secondary
and Higher Secondary Board,
Through its Chairman, Nagpur
Divisional Board, Civil Lines,
Nagpur 440001
(6) The Zilla Parishad, Wardha,
Through its Education Officer
(Secondary)
..𝓐..
Judgment 11 913wp7700.22+.odt
(7) The Office of the Pay &
Provident Fund Unit,
Through its Superintendent,
Wardha, District Wardha
(8) Wardha Education Society,
Through its Secretary, Wardha,
District Wardha
(9) New English High School and
Junior College, Through its
Principal, Wardha, District
Wardha ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7698/2022
Girish Prabhakarrao Kale,
Aged about 50 years, Occ.
Service, R/o. 24, Rama Nagar,
(Alodi), Post Nalwadi, Taluka &
District Wardha 442001 .....PETITIONER(S)
// VERSUS //
(1) State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of
Education, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32
..𝓐..
Judgment 12 913wp7700.22+.odt
(2) Maharashtra State Secondary
and Higher Secondary Board,
Through its Chairman, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur, Civil Lines,
Nagpur 440001
(3) Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur
(4) Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Wardha
(5) Wardha Education Society,
Through its President, Wardha,
C/o. New English High School
and Junior College, Wardha
(6) New English High School and .
Junior College, Through its
Principal, Wardha
(7) Dnyanendra Vishwanath
Muneshwar,
Aged about 43 years, Occ.
Service, R/o. 33, Bapatwadi,
Vikramsheela Nagar Road,
Wardha 442003
....RESPONDENT(S)
..𝓐..
Judgment 13 913wp7700.22+.odt
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 7699/2022
Sanjaykumar Wamanrao Zade,
Aged about 48 years, Occ.
Service, R/o. Plot No. 23, Maa
Durga Niwas, Lahari Nagar,
Murarka Layout, Nalwadi,
Wardha, District Wardha
442001 .....PETITIONER(S)
// VERSUS //
(1) State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of
Education, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32
(2) Maharashtra State Secondary
and Higher Secondary Board,
Through its Chairman, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur, Civil Lines,
Nagpur 440001
(3) Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur
(4) Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Wardha
..𝓐..
Judgment 14 913wp7700.22+.odt
(5) Wardha Education Society,
Through its President, Wardha,
C/o. New English High School
and Junior College, Wardha
(6) New English High School and .
Junior College, Through its
Principal, Wardha
(7) Dnyanendra Vishwanath
Muneshwar,
Aged about 43 years, Occ.
Service, R/o. 33, Bapatwadi,
Vikramsheela Nagar Road,
Wardha 442003
....RESPONDENT(S)
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
S/Shri Apurv De & A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocates for the
respective Petitioners
Smt. S.V. Kolhe, AGP for the Respondent/State
S/Shri P.A. Gode, N.R. Saboo & P.B. Patil, Advocates for the
respective Respondents
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
CORAM : M.S. JAWALKAR & PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON :- AUGUST 14, 2025
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :- SEPTEMBER 09, 2025
JUDGMENT :
- (PER:- M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties.
..𝓐..
Judgment 15 913wp7700.22+.odt
(2) Since Writ Petition No. 7700/2022 is treated as main
Petition, the facts and contentions stated in the said Petition are
set out for adjudication of the issue involved in all the Petitions
and they are being decided by this common judgment.
(3) The facts of the case, in brief, are as under:-
(4) The present Petitioner was appointed in the year
2000 on non grants-in-aid basis on the post reserved for SBC
category after following the due procedure of law. On
13/06/2000, the Respondent No. 3 - Deputy Director of
Education had given permission to the Respondent No. 6 - New
English High School and Junior College to fill the vacant posts
which were 8 in numbers. Accordingly, on 03/07/2000, the
advertisement was published by the Respondent No. 6. The
present Petitioner appeared in the interview, and on 16/09/2000,
he was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher. On
20/06/2002, the Respondent No. 6 issued fresh appointment
orders to the Petitioner and other 7 teachers. The 7 other
teachers who were appointed along with the present Petitioner
..𝓐..
Judgment 16 913wp7700.22+.odt
are the Petitioners in other connected Writ Petitions. The
details of all the Petitioners are given in the chart below:-
Sr. WP Nos. Names Posts Dates of Subjects
No. appointment
1 WP Dinesh Assistant 16/09/2000
7700/2022 Krushnarao Teacher Biology
Kohare
2 WP Girish Shikshan 16/09/2000 - History,
7698/2022 Prabhakarrao Sevak 15/09/2003 Marathi
Kale on
probation
for 3 years
3 WP Shailesh Shikshan
7701/2022 Rameshkuma Sevak 02/09/2000 Physics
r
4 WP Sanjay Shikshan 16/09/2000 - Physical
8003/2022 Madhukarrao Sevak 15/09/2003 Education
Baman / Eco.
Palliwar
5 WP Mangala Shikshan 02/09/2000 Biology
7696/2022 Vasantrao Sevak
Bhoyar
6 WP Sanjaykumar Assistant 02/09/2000 Physics
7699/2022 Wamanrao Teacher
Zade
7 WP Sau. Pushpa Shikshan 02/09/2000 Chemistry
7697/2022 Sanjayrao Sevak
Dhande
(Chaudhari)
8 WP Sunita Retired 02/09/2000 _
7970/2022 Rajendra Lule
(5) The said appointment of the present Petitioner was
approved by the Respondent No. 3 by communication dated
03/09/2003. The Petitioners successfully completed the
..𝓐..
Judgment 17 913wp7700.22+.odt
probation period of two years. Thereafter, on 26/02/2010, the
Respondent No. 3 granted approval to the appointments of the
Petitioners from the year 2000. On 22/06/2004, the Respondent
No. 7 was appointed on probation on the post of Assistant
Teacher. It is clear from the date of appointment that the
Respondent No. 7 is junior to the Petitioners. Thereafter, on
30/07/2021, Smt. Mangala Bhoyar has been appointed on the
post of Vice Principal of the Respondent No. 6 - School, which
said approval has been granted by the Respondent No. 3 -
Deputy Director of Education.
(6) On 24/06/2021 and 29/07/2021, after a period of
almost 21 years of completion of service of the Petitioners, the
Respondent No. 7 filed Complaints to the Respondent Nos. 3 and
5 respectively raising baseless grievances with regard to the
appointments of the Petitioners. According to the Petitioners,
the Respondent No. 7, by hook or by crock wants to hold the
post of Vice Principal in the Respondent No. 6 - School by
taking the Management at ransom. Hearing of the said matter
was conducted before the Respondent No. 2 - Maharashtra State
Secondary and Higher Secondary Board. On 24/11/2022 and
..𝓐..
Judgment 18 913wp7700.22+.odt
30/11/2022, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively passed the
impugned orders thereby allowing the Complaints of the
Respondent No. 7 and cancelling the approval of the Petitioners.
The said orders dated 24/11/2022 and 30/11/2022 are the subject
matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition.
(7) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the
impugned orders suffer from delay and laches, are contrary to
the provisions of law and are passed on assumptions and
presumptions. The roster points of 1999-00, 2000-01 and 2001-
02 would show that due to the increased work load from time to
time, more number of approved teachers were required. Hence,
the appointments of the Petitioners are legal and proper and
were granted after following the due procedure of law, and
therefore, the same cannot be cancelled or withdrawn after a
service period of 22 years. It is submitted that it is the settled
principle of law that it is completely the prerogative of the
Management to appoint the employees and fill the back log. It is
submitted that now, after a service of so many years, the
Respondents - Authorities cannot take a 'U' turn and cancel the
approval of the Petitioners for no fault on their part. The belated
..𝓐..
Judgment 19 913wp7700.22+.odt
Complaints filed by the Respondent No. 7 should not have been
entertained by the Respondents - Authorities and should have
been dismissed at the outset. Hence, it is prayed that the
impugned orders need to be quashed and set aside and
appointments of the Petitioners be uphold.
(8) Shri Apurv De and Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, learned
Counsel for the Petitioners, in support of their contentions,
relied on the following citations:-
(a) Writ Petition No. 219/2022 (Pandurang Narayan
Kanekar vs. The State of Maharashtra & others);
(b) Writ Petition No. 10133/2016 (Mrs. Shivanee
Prasanna Deshpande vs. State of Maharashtra &
others);
(c) Writ Petition No. 1380/2019 (Ansari Amina
Muzhar Ali vs. The State of Maharashtra &
others);
(d) Writ Petition No. 1491/2021 (Bhushan Vikas
Gawad vs. The State of Maharashtra & others)
(e) Writ Petition No. 2492/2024 (Nishant Namdeorao
Gatkal & another vs. The State of Maharashtra &
others)
(f) Union of India & others vs. N. Murugesan Etc,
2022 (2) SCC 25;
..𝓐..
Judgment 20 913wp7700.22+.odt
(g) Food Corporation of India vs. Ashis Kumar
Ganguly, 2009 (7) SCC 734;
(h) K.R. Mudgal vs. R.P. Singh, 1986 (4) SCC 531.
(9) On the contrary, Smt. S.V. Kolhe, learned AGP for
the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 submitted that in pursuance of the
Complaint filed by the Respondent No. 7, the Respondent No. 3
- Deputy Director of Education formed an Enquiry Committee
and the Enquiry Committee recommended to cancel the
approval order of the Petitioners. After a detailed enquiry, the
Respondent No. 2 found that there are glaring irregularities
committed by the Respondent No. 5 - Management and the
Respondent No. 6 - School in connivance with the Petitioners.
The Enquiry Committee has recorded the finding that the
Respondent No. 5 - Management and the Respondent No. 6 -
School have obtained the approval by increasing the workload in
the work chart of grants-in-aid basis and by showing zero
backlog while taking the approval. Hence, the Respondent No. 2
cancelled the approval of the Petitioners. From the perusal of the
Enquiry Report, it is clear that the Respondent Nos 5 and 6, by
misleading the then Deputy Director of Education, received
..𝓐..
Judgment 21 913wp7700.22+.odt
approval order and the then Deputy Director of Education,
without verifying the documents, had granted approval to the
Petitioners. It is submitted that the Petitioners have failed to
make out any case for interference, hence, the Petitions being
devoid of merits, are liable to be dismissed.
(10) Shri P.B. Patil, learned Counsel for the Respondent
No. 2 submitted that bare perusal of the order dated 24/11/2022
would indicate that there was an enquiry conducted by the
Committee of Five Members in the illegality committed by the
Management while making the appointments. The parties were
granted opportunity of hearing and after considering the rival
contentions, the Respondent No. 2 has passed the impugned
order. The Respondent No. 2 has recorded a finding that there
was misrepresentation and suppression of facts while obtaining
approval from the Education Officer. As such, the Respondent
No. 2 was justified in passing the impugned order. It is submitted
that the impugned order passed by the Respondent No. 2 is a
well reasoned order and the view taken by the Respondent No. 2
is possible and permissible view. Hence, he prays for dismissal of
the Writ Petitions.
..𝓐..
Judgment 22 913wp7700.22+.odt
(11) Shri N.R. Saboo, learned Counsel for the Respondent
Nos. 5 and 6 submitted that when the advertisement was issued
on 03/07/2000, the Respondent No. 7 did not apply nor
participated in the selection procedure. As such, there is no
occasion for the Respondent No. 7 to challenge the
appointments of the Petitioners. It is submitted that after the
appointment of the Respondent No. 7, the Respondent Nos. 5
and 6 notified the seniority list of the Assistant Teachers,
wherein the Petitioners were shown above the Respondent
No. 7. In absence of the objection to the earlier seniority list,
with oblique motive on 24/06/2021, the Respondent No. 7
submitted the Complaint to the President of the Educational
Society and claimed that the appointment orders issued by the
Management to the Petitioners for the Session 2000-01 were
illegal. The Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have not done any illegal
act and have followed the due procedure of law in appointments
of the Petitioners.
(12) Shri P.A. Gode, learned Counsel for the Respondent
No. 7 submitted that action of the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 has
..𝓐..
Judgment 23 913wp7700.22+.odt
been held to be illegal by the Joint Committee vide report dated
27/06/2022 submitted to the Deputy Director of Education
which clearly shows that action of the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6
appointing the Petitioners is patently illegal. The said act of the
Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 establishes the collusion between the
Petitioners and the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6. It is submitted that
the Management has suppressed certain facts as far as the
verification of the roster is concerned. The roster has to be
verified by the Backward Class Cell Office, Nagpur and the
roster signed by the Deputy Director of Education has been
objected by the Backward Class Cell. In the enquiry, the
Management had accepted the backlog in the year 2000, so also,
that the workload was not available on the date of
advertisement. Now, the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 cannot take 'U'
turn by contending that there was no backlog at the time of
advertisement of the year 2000 and there was no workload on
grant basis submitted by the Committee. Hence, the impugned
orders passed by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are completely
within the framework and in accordance with law. Hence, he
prays for dismissal of the Writ Petitions.
..𝓐..
Judgment 24 913wp7700.22+.odt
(13) Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 7, in support
of his contentions, relied on the following citations:-
(a) Afroz Khan vs. The State of Maharashtra &
others, MANU/MH/0171/2019;
(b) Ashok Sonkar vs. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC
54;
(c) Upen Chandra Gogoi vs. State of Assam & others,
AIR 1998 SC 1289;
(d) K. Shekar vs. Indiramma, (2002) 3 SCC 586;
(e) Nanasaheb Vasantrao Jadhav vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2022) 3 Bom C.R. 54;
(f) S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs vs.
Jagannath (Dead) by L.Rs & others, AIR 1994 SC
853;
(g) Kendriya Vidyalay Sangathan & others vs. Ajay
Kumar Das & others, AIR 2002 SC 2426;
(h) Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur vs. Gokul
Narain (Dead) by L.Rs & others, (1996) 4 SCC
178; and
(i) State of Bihar vs. Upendra Narayan Singh &
others, (2009) 5 SCC 65.
..𝓐..
Judgment 25 913wp7700.22+.odt
(14) Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties at
length, considered the documents placed on record and citations
relied on by the parties.
(15) Admittedly, on 13/06/2000, the Respondent No. 3 -
Deputy Director of Education has given permission to the
Respondent No. 6 - New English High School and Junior
College to fill in 8 vacant posts. Accordingly, the advertisement
was published by the Respondent No. 6 for filling up 8 vacant
posts. All the Petitioners came to be appointed after following
the due procedure of law. The appointment orders were issued
on 20/06/2002 and the Respondent No. 3 - Deputy Director of
Education granted approval to the said appointments. In
between, on 23/02/2001, the Deputy Director of Education
granted approval to 8 teachers, out of which 3 were Shikshan
Sewaks and 5 were on probation. The said approval was stayed
on 02/11/2001 on the ground that the roster points are not
shown and not certified from the Backward Class Cell Office,
Nagpur. Vide communication dated 24/01/2003, the approval
granted by the Respondent No. 3 - Deputy Director of
..𝓐..
Judgment 26 913wp7700.22+.odt
Education dated 23/02/2001 in respect of 8 teachers was
cancelled by the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur.
(16) It is contended by the Petitioners that the Deputy
Director neither had such powers to review the order passed by
himself, nor any case of malafide, misrepresentation or fraud was
made out. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 3 - Deputy Director
of Education verified the record and having found that there is
complete work load available and the appointments were made
legally, granted approval to the Petitioners and other Employees
vide its order dated 03/09/2003. This approval was granted w.e.f.
24/06/2002. Out of 8 teachers, 7 were granted approval as Full
Time Lecturers and one granted as Part Time Lecturer. The
Petitioners completed probation period of Shikshan Sewaks on
23/06/2005 and became permanent Junior College Teachers.
Accordingly, the approval was granted by the Deputy Director
of Education vide its order dated 13/12/2005. All the benefits
including deduction of Provident Fund as per the Old Pension
Scheme was accepted and implemented by the Respondents in
respect of the Petitioners. The Deputy Director of Education
confirmed the earlier approval order again by order dated
..𝓐..
Judgment 27 913wp7700.22+.odt
26/02/2010. Not only this, while issuing the revised order of
approval, the approval has been given from the initial date of
appointment i.e. 02/09/2000 of probation and confirmation after
two years as Full Time Junior College Teacher. The Petitioner in
Writ Petition No. 7970/2022 namely Mrs. Sunita Lule, after
superannuation, stood retired on 03/03/2016. At no point of
time, either her appointment or approval was challenged by
anybody.
(17) A person namely Dyanendra Muneshwar
(Respondent No. 7), who was appointed as Junior College
Teacher, somewhere in the year 2004 alleged to have made a
Complaint to the Deputy Director of Education for the first time
in 2021, alleging that there was no work load available in respect
of the Petitioners and the approvals were granted illegally. Mrs.
Lule retired in 2016 and also receiving pension. In the said
Complaint, the said Dyanendra Muneshwar prayed for
cancellation of the approvals granted in 2001, 2005 and
confirmed in 2010. On perusal of the Complaint, the
Complainant has raised 9 grounds for cancellation of the
approvals granted in 2001, 2005 and 2010. The Complaint is
..𝓐..
Judgment 28 913wp7700.22+.odt
dated 29/07/2021. It is alleged that there was no sufficient work
load in the year 2000-01.
(18) Another contention of the Complainant was that in
spite of the backlog, no advertisement showing backlog was
published in the year 2001-02 and there is no reason to confirm
the approval in the year 2010. From their first appointment i.e.
2000-01, though there was backlog, the candidates from open
category were appointed. It is also alleged that by showing
backlog as '0', the approval was obtained and the same was
cancelled by the Deputy Director of Education. It is alleged that
the Divisional Deputy Director, after cancelling the approval
granted on 23/02/2001, the Management/School ought to have
issued new advertisement and new process of appointment.
Therefore, it appears that there is irregularity in the
appointments. It is demanded by the Complainant that the
approvals of 8 teachers be cancelled and recovery be made from
them for last 21 years. It is also alleged that the Divisional
Deputy Director has not performed his duties and caused loss of
crores of rupees to the State by not verifying the proposal in the
year 2010 as to whether there was sufficient work load for
..𝓐..
Judgment 29 913wp7700.22+.odt
appointments of these teachers. By way of this Complaint, he
prayed for re-examination of the orders dated 23/02/2001,
02/11/2001 and 26/02/2010. It is also prayed by the Complainant
that the recovery be made from the concerned teachers and
their proposals, if any, for the post of Vice-Principal may not be
granted.
(19) On perusal of the Complaint, it appears that the
Petitioners want to hold the post of Vice-Principal in the
Respondent No. 6 - School. It is also clear from another
communication made by the Complainant - Shri Dyanendra
Muneshwar to the President, Wardha Education Society dated
24/06/2021 (Annexure-K). In this communication also, the
grounds raised are the same, however, it is his contention that
while appointing the new Vice-President, he should be
considered for the same as 7 teachers above him in the seniority
list are appointed illegally and without following the due
procedure of law. He has also given option to the Management
that the Management should get in writing from the said
teachers that they do not want the seniority list and they are not
willing to get appointed as a Vice-Principal, so that there will
..𝓐..
Judgment 30 913wp7700.22+.odt
not be any impediment in appointing the Complainant as the
Vice-Principal. In second option, he has threatened the
Management and the Petitioners that if those teachers are
willing to have the seniority, the Complainant will proceed
further in the Court of law and in that process, around Rs. 20
crores unnecessary financial burden will be put on the Society.
In view thereof, he requested to consider his first option i.e. to
get in writing from the teachers that they will not claim any
seniority and they do not want to be promoted as the Vice-
Principal. It is also suggested that all the teachers should give up
their claim of seniority as they have already been benefited
financially and again requested for considering his claim for post
of Vice-Principal.
(20) In reply, the Respondent No. 3 submitted that after
receipt of the Complaint, the Enquiry Committee consisting of 5
persons came to be formed vide its communication dated
20/12/2021. There is no provision of appointing such Committee
atleast in the MEPS Act. The said Committee submitted the
written submissions, completed the enquiry and recommended
in the year 2021-22 for cancellation of the approvals granted to
..𝓐..
Judgment 31 913wp7700.22+.odt
all the 7 teachers in 2003 and directed to stop the pension of
Mrs. Lule who retired in the year 2016 and to recover the said
amount since her appointment till date. Recovery and freezing
of GPF, DCPS or converted NPS were also recommended against
all the 7 teachers. It was recommended that the Management,
after cancellation of the approval, terminate the services of all
the 7 teachers. It is also observed that as the then Deputy
Director of Education retired long back and those are seniors to
the Members of the Enquiry Committee, no action is proposed
against them. On receipt of the report, the Deputy Director of
Education, Nagpur forwarded the proposal for cancellation of
approval of the said 8 teachers to the Director of Education vide
its communication dated 04/07/2022. The recommendation is
based on the decision of the Committee. The Deputy Director of
Education, in its communication dated 01/09/2022, forwarded
the report of the Committee to the Divisional President of the
Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Secondary Board. In
view of the letter by the Director of Education dated 17/08/2022,
the report was forwarded to the Education Board. The Education
Board reiterated in its decision about the recommendation
without verifying the actual record. Moreover, the Board has no
..𝓐..
Judgment 32 913wp7700.22+.odt
jurisdiction to pass any order unless the conditions prescribed in
Section 4A exist in the matter. For the sake of convenience,
Sections 4A(1)(a) and (b) & 4(6) of the MEPS Act are reproduced
as under:-
"4A. Director's power to hold or order holding of
inquiries
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(6) of section 4 or any other provisions of this Act or
the rules made thereunder, where in any case of
alleged misconduct or misbehaviour of a serious nature
or moral turpitude of an employee,--
(a) an inquiry is held by an Inquiry Committee into
such allegations and the Director is of the opinion that
the Inquiry Committee has unreasonably exonerated
the employee, he may call for and examine the record
and proceeding of such inquiry for the purpose of
satisfying himself as to the correctness of the decision
on the basis of its findings, and may either annul,
revise, modify or confirm the said decision or may
direct the Inquiry Committee to make further inquiry
for taking such additional evidence as they may think
necessary or he may himself take or authorise any
other officer not below the rank of the Education
Officer to take such additional evidence ; and while
making an order under this clause, if the Director is
..𝓐..
Judgment 33 913wp7700.22+.odt
satisfied that the charges of serious misconduct,
misbehaviour, or as the case may be, moral turpitude
have been substantially proved, he shall direct the
Management to impose on such employee any of the
penalties as specified in sub-section (4) :
Provided that, the Director shall not record any order
under this sub section without giving the party affected
thereby and the Management an opportunity of being
heard.
(b) the Management has either neglected or refused to
hold an inquiry against such employee in accordance
with the provisions of this Act and the rules made in
that behalf, the Director shall direct the Management
to initiate action within thirty days from the receipt of
such direction, for holding inquiry into the allegation
against such employee and to complete the same in
accordance with such provisions and rules.
6. (1) Obligations of Head of private school. If ..
(a) the Head of a private school or any person duly
authorised by him in that behalf,
(i) makes unauthorised alterations in the date of birth
of any student recorded in the General Register of the
school or gives a school leaving certificate with the date
of birth different from that recorded in the General
Register; or
..𝓐..
Judgment 34 913wp7700.22+.odt
(ii) admits any student from an unrecognised
educational institution without a written order of the
Deputy Director ; or
(iii) gives accelerated promotion to, or detains any
student, either of his own accord or at the instance of
the Management, in contravention of the rules made in
that behalf ; or
(b) the employee of a private school is dismissed or
removed or his services are otherwise terminated on
account of misconduct, gross negligence of duties,
moral turpitude, mis-appropriation of school money or
material, negligence or misconduct or both in
connection with the examinations or creation of
communal disharmony;]
then the Director may, after making such enquiries as
he thinks fit, by an order in writing debar the Head or
such authorised person 3[or such employee] from
holding that post for a period of five years from the
date of the order. If after the said period of five years,
the Head or such authorised person 3[or such
employee] is found to have committed any of the acts
aforesaid again, then he may, after giving him a
reasonable opportunity of being heard, be permanently
debarred by the Director from holding such post in any
private school.
(2) After making any order under sub-section (1), the
Director shall cause the name of such Head or
..𝓐..
Judgment 35 913wp7700.22+.odt
authorised person 4[or employee] to be entered in a
Black List Register maintained for the purpose, and
communicate the name of the Head or such person 4[or
employee] to all the managements of private schools in
the State."
(21) Thus, the Board has no authority unless there is any
case of alleged misconduct or misbehaviour of a serious nature
or moral turpitude of an Employee. In the present matter, none
of these grounds are raised against any of the Employees. This
power can be invoked only when the enquiry is held by the
Enquiry Committee into such allegations and the Director is of
the opinion that the Enquiry Committee has unreasonably
exonerated the Employee. Secondly, if the Management has
either neglected or refused to hold an enquiry against such an
Employee in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.
Thus, Section 4A of the said Act come into play only when there
is above referred allegations against the Employee and the
Management is neglecting the same. Thus, the order passed by
the Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Education Board
dated 24/11/2022 is absolutely without jurisdiction. There is no
allegation against the teacher of any nature of suppression, fraud,
..𝓐..
Judgment 36 913wp7700.22+.odt
misbehaviour, misconduct and moral turpitude. In view of the
order passed by the said Board, the Deputy Director of
Education passed the impugned order dated 30/11/2022. In our
considered opinion, the Divisional President of the said Board
was not having any jurisdiction to pass the impugned order
dated 24/11/2022, and therefore, the order dated 30/11/2022
passed by the Respondent No. 3 - Deputy Director of Education
is also unsustainable in law.
(22) Insofar as the question of work load and roster is
concerned, the Petitioners as well as Respondents -
Management have produced the relevant documents on record
which clearly go to show that there was sufficient work load in
the year 2000-01 and the roster was duly maintained which was
certified by the Backward Class Cell, Nagpur. Subsequent
approval granted in 2003 w.e.f. 2002 is sufficient to hold that
after submitting the documents, the Authorities are satisfied and
granted approval. Needless to mention here that every year,
there is a staff justification for the last 21 years. There is no
remark of excess appointment. The roster which was maintained
and certified by the Backward Class Cell, Nagpur is at Annexure-
..𝓐..
Judgment 37 913wp7700.22+.odt
R (Page No. 109). It is for the year 2001-02. Secondly, there are
details of work load given by the Principal of New English High
School as per the existing position of 24/11/2000 (Page No. 114,
Annexure-T). The Deputy Director of Education has duly
accepted the work load and communicated that the staff
justification will be informed accordingly. Accordingly, there
was yearly sanction to the post given by the Deputy Director of
Education.
(23) In our considered opinion, this record was not at all
considered by the Committee which is constituted without
jurisdiction. Even if it is presumed that the Committee
constituted is having jurisdiction, there is no consideration for
the delay in filing the Complaint. It appears that on 24/04/2003,
(Page No. 158, Annexure-X), the Respondent - School duly
explained about the backlog as well as the work load for the
years 1999-00 and 2000-01. As the appointment were of 2001
and enquiry is conducted in the year 2021, there was no
opportunity to cross-examine any of the persons who then take
the decisions. We felt it appropriate to see the record of the
Deputy Director of Education in respect of the years 2003 and
..𝓐..
Judgment 38 913wp7700.22+.odt
2010 whereby fresh approval was granted and the date of
approval was corrected at the instance of Deputy Director of
Education, which is necessary to come to any decision.
Therefore, the direction was issued to the learned AGP to place
the record of Deputy Director of Education of the relevant year.
However, it was informed by communication dated 13/08/2025
by the Deputy Director of Education that his record is 22 years
old and the office has shifted in the year 2018 from Zero Miles to
Dhantoli, Nagpur. Therefore, it is not traceable. This
communication is taken on record and marked as 'X' for
identification.
(24) It is very surprising that the Committee constituted
conducted its enquiry, gave its report in 2021 and as per the
letter, the record is not traceable since 2018, that clearly goes to
show that without verifying the record, the Enquiry Committee
proceeded and one sided enquiry has been conducted. The
Higher Authorities have also not looked into the fact that the
record is necessary. Whatever was the reason for granting
approval in 2003 w.e.f. 2002 would have been cleared from the
said record. Even the record produced by the Petitioners and the
..𝓐..
Judgment 39 913wp7700.22+.odt
Management appears to be not considered by the Authorities
superior to the Members of the Enquiry Committee. The
Complaint appears to be malafide as the Complainant wants to
become the Vice-Principal of the school by defeating the claims
of 7 senior persons above him. There is no consideration for the
delay in the enquiry by the Authorities. Mrs. Lule stood retired
in 2016 and she is receiving pension also. In spite of this fact,
without any reason, it was directed to stop the pension. There is
proper procedure followed at the time of appointment of these
teachers. There was permission by the Education Department to
advertise the posts. The posts were accordingly advertised and
the Petitioners came to be appointed by following the due
procedure of law.
(25) Admittedly, the Complainant/Respondent No. 7
entered into service in the year 2004. There is no explanation as
to why he kept quiet for these 17 years. The enquiry appears to
be concluded within a day. In fact, after 21 years, the Petitioners
did not have any opportunity to cross-examine the then existing
Authorities. In view thereof, the total procedure adopted by the
Deputy Director of Education is illegal. There must be yearly
..𝓐..
Judgment 40 913wp7700.22+.odt
inspection of the School. Those are also not called by the
Committee or the Superior Authorities to get themselves
satisfied whether there was sufficient work load nor they have
called any remark from the Backward Class Cell. There is no
case of fraud or misrepresentation. Moreover, the backlog can be
carried forward, if no person from that category is available.
(26) Shri Mohgaonkar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners
relied on the judgment in the case of Pandurang Kanekar
(supra), wherein similar issue was involved. This Court, in
Paragraph Nos. 13 & 14, has held as under:-
"13. The main ground stated in the order of
cancellation of the appointment is that as per the
roster posts reserved for backward class candidates
were not filled up and in the school staff the post of
Shikshan Sevak was not sanctioned. In our opinion,
this order cannot be sustained for two reasons. First,
appointment of the petitioner was made by
respondent No.6 by following the procedure as laid
down under Rule-9 of the M.E.P.S. Rules and
second, the show cause notice is bereft of the
required particulars and more particularly, the
ground on which the approval has ultimately been
cancelled. It is pertinent to note that as per the
..𝓐..
Judgment 41 913wp7700.22+.odt
provisions of section 5, sub section (2A), the order
passed by respondent No.4 cannot be sustained.
Appointment order was admittedly for a period of
three years. Approval was granted to the said
appointment. Even if it is assumed for the sake of
argument that there was no approval, in our opinion,
it would not stand in the way of the petitioner
because as provided under Section-5, sub section
(2A) on completion of the probation period of three
years, the petitioner became a permanent teacher. As
can be seen from the record, two posts from the open
category were vacant. Even if it is assumed for the
sake of argument that there was a backlog of one
reserve category candidate, the petitioner was rightly
appointed on the open category post. In the
background of these facts and the provisions of
section 5 of the M.E.P.S Act and Rule-9 of the
M.E.P.S Rules, it was incumbent upon respondent
No.4 to specifically set out the relevant ground in the
show cause notice. It was also incumbent upon him
to record concrete finding based on the facts and
applicable law as above and then form an opinion
vis-a-vis illegality or otherwise of the appointment of
the petitioner. It is seen that the show cause notice is
bereft of the above particulars. Similarly, the order
passed by respondent No.4 on this point is as vague
as the vagueness could be. In our view, therefore, in
the teeth of the above stated facts, a deemed
..𝓐..
Judgment 42 913wp7700.22+.odt
confirmed employee cannot be dislodged from his
position on the basis of such order.
"14..... The power of reconsideration or review of
the appointment and the subsequent approval can be
done in a limited circumstances. The circumstances
are, therefore, required to be spelt out in the show
cause notice. The main circumstances are fraud or
misrepresentation or suppression of the material fact
in the process of the appointment as well as in the
process of according approval. In case of fraud,
misrepresentation and suppression, relevant facts are
required to be spelt out in the show cause notice. The
fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of facts can
be attributed to the teacher, management and to the
authorities as well. In some cases, possibility of
collusion cannot be ruled out. In our opinion,
therefore, before reconsidering or taking review of
decision, the relevant grounds must be specifically
stated. In our opinion, on proof of fraud,
misrepresentation, collusion or suppression of
material facts, the review may be permissible. It is
cardinal rule of law that the accrued benefits cannot
be taken away without giving concerned person
reasonable opportunity of hearing and to defend the
specific allegations against him."
..𝓐..
Judgment 43 913wp7700.22+.odt
(27) Shri Mohgaonkar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners
placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of
Shivanee Prasanna Deshpande (supra) wherein this Court held
in Paragraph No. 6 as under:-
"6. We find that it will not be necessary for
us to go into the merits to find out as to whether the
reasons given by the Education Officer in the
affidavit are correct or not. We find that the petitions
deserve to be allowed on short ground that by the
impugned order, Respondent Education Officer has
set aside the order passed by the earlier Education
Officer. As such, the impugned order revokes the
approval granted by the earlier order passed by the
predecessor in the office of the Respondent
Education Officer. By now, it is settled principle of
law that unless the power of review is specifically or
by necessary implication provided, the authority
cannot review its own order. No doubt, if an order is
obtained by exercising fraud, it would stand vitiated.
However, it is not the case of the Respondent-
Education Officer that Petitioners have obtained
their initial orders by fraudulent means. If the earlier
Education Officer had granted approval to the
Petitioners' appointment, may be erroneously, the
same cannot be made a ground to recall the same and
pass contrary order, unless a case of fraud,
misrepresentation or suppression is made out.
..𝓐..
Judgment 44 913wp7700.22+.odt
Particularly when most of the Petitioners have
already put in their services for 11 years, the
impugned orders would amount to penalising them
for no fault on their part."
(emphasis supplied)
(28) Similar view is taken in the judgment in the case of
Ansari Amina Muzhar Ali (supra). This Court, in the said
judgment, held in Paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 as under:-
"7. Here, we are concerned with the order passed
inter-party. The Petitioners had approached this
Court earlier, and with certain observations, the
petitions were allowed. The Division Bench opined
that it is a settled principle of law that unless the
power of review, specifically or by necessary
implication, is provided, the Authority cannot review
its own order. Second, if there is a case of fraud or
misrepresentation made out, there can be ground to
recall the order. Another aspect that where a person
has put in a long period of service, then such a review
would be highly inequitable.
8. ...... The observations were not in the context of
any officer but were prescribing the act of reviewing
the earlier decisions, as such reviews after a long
period of time when legitimate expectations arise,
parties settle in life; are highly inequitable. Such
..𝓐..
Judgment 45 913wp7700.22+.odt
powers would be arbitrarily used. The Division
Bench, therefore, restricted the power of
reconsideration/review in limited circumstances of
fraud, suppression and misrepresentation. The
phrases "fraud", "misrepresentation", and
"suppression" are not colloquial terms, but they have
a judicially recognized ambit. These three factors
need not be restricted to the acts of teachers and
management alone, but they can be by the authorities
and by way of collusion. In such cases, the review
would be permissible. For that purpose, show cause
notice should mention that these factors exist."
(emphasis supplied)
(29) Shri Mohgaonkar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners
also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Bhushan
Vikas Gawad (supra) wherein this Court placed reliance on the
judgment in Writ Petition No. 10133/2016 (Shivanee P.
Deshpande vs. State of Maharashtra). It was observed that the
learned AGP could not point out existence of fraud,
misrepresentation or appointment of the Petitioner therein or
the Management in the appointment of the Petitioner which
would have empowered the Deputy Director of Education to
exercise the power of review.
..𝓐..
Judgment 46 913wp7700.22+.odt
(30) Shri Mohgaonkar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners
placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Nishant
Namdeorao Gatkal (supra) wherein, this Court, in Paragraph
No. 6, observed as under:-
"6. In several cases, we have noticed that the
persons describing themselves as social workers,
lodge complaints against teachers and professors
working in Schools, Colleges and Universities and
hold out threats to the education department to
compel them to commence roving inquiries against
such employees. We have directed that such
complaints should not be entertained. In some
matters, we have also held that, Writ Petitions filed
by such persons who intend to settle a personal score
or pray for roving inquiries, should not be
entertained."
(31) Shri Apurv De, learned Counsel for the Petitioners
relied on the judgment in the case of N. Murugesan ETC (supra)
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court explained the terms laches,
acquiescence, approbate and reprobate. It is held in Paragraph
Nos. 21, 22, 24 & 25 as under:-
"21. The word laches is derived from the
French language meaning "remissness and slackness".
It thus involves unreasonable delay or negligence in
..𝓐..
Judgment 47 913wp7700.22+.odt
pursuing a claim involving an equitable relief while
causing prejudice to the other party. It is neglect on
the part of a party to do an act which law requires
while asserting a right, and therefore, must stand in
the way of the party getting relief or remedy.
22. Two essential factors to be seen are the
length of the delay and the nature of acts done during
the interval. As stated, it would also involve
acquiescence on the part of the party approaching the
Court apart from the change in position in the
interregnum. Therefore, it would be unjustifiable for
a Court of Equity to confer a remedy to a party who
knocks its doors when his acts would indicate a
waiver of such a right. By his conduct, he has put the
other party in a particular position, and therefore, it
would be unreasonable to facilitate a challenge before
the Court. Thus, a man responsible for his conduct on
equity is not expected to be allowed to avail a
remedy.
23. .....
24. We have already discussed the
relationship between acquiescence on the one hand
and delay and laches on the other. Acquiescence
would mean a tacit or passive acceptance. It is
implied and reluctant consent to an act. In other
words, such an action would qualify a passive assent.
..𝓐..
Judgment 48 913wp7700.22+.odt
Thus, when acquiescence takes place, it presupposes
knowledge against a particular act. From the
knowledge comes passive acceptance, therefore
instead of taking any action against any alleged
refusal to perform the original contract, despite
adequate knowledge of its terms, and instead being
allowed to continue by consciously ignoring it and
thereafter proceeding further, acquiescence does take
place.
25. As a consequence, it reintroduces a new
implied agreement between the parties. Once such a
situation arises, it is not open to the party that
acquiesced itself to insist upon the compliance of the
original terms. Hence, what is essential, is the
conduct of the parties. We only dealt with the
distinction involving a mere acquiescence. When
acquiescence is followed by delay, it may become
laches. Here again, we are inclined to hold that the
concept of acquiescence is to be seen on a case-to-
case basis."
(emphasis supplied)
(32) Shri Apurv De, learned Counsel for the Petitioners
also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Food
Corporation of India (supra) wherein the judgment in the case of
..𝓐..
Judgment 49 913wp7700.22+.odt
State of Tamil Nadu v. Seshachalam [(2007) 10 SCC 137] is
referred, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"Some of the respondents might have filed
representations but filing of representations alone
would not save the period of limitation. Delay or
latches is a relevant factor for a court of law to
determine the question as to whether the claim made
by an applicant deserves consideration. Delay and/or
latches on the part of a Government servant may
deprive him of the benefit which had been given to
others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would
not, in a situation of that nature, be attracted as it is
well known that law leans in favour of those who are
alert and vigilant. Opinion of the High Court that
GOMs No. 126 dated 29.5.1998 gave a fresh lease of
life having regard to the legitimate expectation, in
our opinion, is based on a wrong premise. Legitimate
expectation is a part of the principles of natural
justice. No fresh right can be created by invoking the
doctrine of legitimate expectation. By reason thereof
only the existing right is saved subject, of course, to
the provisions of the statute. {See State of Himachal
Pradesh and Anr. v. Kailash Chand Mahajan and Ors.
1992 Supp.(2) SCC 351}."
(emphasis supplied)
..𝓐..
Judgment 50 913wp7700.22+.odt
(33) Shri Apurv De, learned Counsel for the Petitioners
also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of K.R. Mudgal
(supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "satisfactory
service conditions postulate that there should be no sense of
uncertainty amongst the Government servants created by the
writ petitions filed after several years. It is essential that any one
who feels aggrieved by the seniority assigned to him should
approach the Court as early as possible, as otherwise in addition
to the creation of a sense of insecurity in the minds of the
Government servants there would also be administrative
complications and difficulties. In the said case even after nearly
32 years the dispute regarding the appointment of some of the
respondents to the writ petition is still lingering in this Court. It
is held that the High Court was wrong in rejecting the
preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents to the
writ petition on the ground of laches."
(34) Shri P.A. Gode, learned Counsel for the Respondent
No. 7 relied on the judgment in the case of Afroz Khan (supra),
however, the facts involved in the said matter are
distinguishable. There was admission on the part of the
..𝓐..
Judgment 51 913wp7700.22+.odt
Institution that the Petitioner was appointed as against the post
reserved for ST. Furthermore, there was no roster. There was no
clearance from the B.C. Cell before the advertisement. Even the
Education Officer had not given permission to advertise the post,
though he subsequently helped the Institution giving approval
to the appointment of the Petitioner. Thus, the appointment has
been made without following the said procedure. In the present
matter, as discussed above, there is certification by Backward
Class Cell about roster point, and there is also permission of the
Deputy Director of Education to advertise the posts and due
procedure is followed by the Institution. Therefore, the citation
is of no help to the Respondent No. 7.
(35) Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 7 also relied
on the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra).
This judgment is also of no help to the Respondent No. 7, on the
same grounds as stated above. As such, we do no see any
illegality or irregularity in the appointment orders issued in
favour of the Petitioners. Due procedure is followed and there
are no allegations of fraud or misrepresentation against the
Petitioners.
..𝓐..
Judgment 52 913wp7700.22+.odt
(36) Insofar as the contention of the Respondent No.7 that
an action which was not lawful at inception cannot be validated
is concerned, there is no dispute over the said proposition of law,
however, the Respondent No. 7 has not established that there
was no procedure followed at the time of appointments in the
year 2000.
(37) Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 7 also placed
reliance on the judgment in the case of K. Shekar (supra)
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph No. 23 has held as
under:-
"23. If we start with the 'root', - there can be
no doubt that the appellant's appointment as
Lecturer in 1986 was not in terms of the
advertisement pursuant to which he had applied.
Before any appointment could be made to the post of
Lecturer, the post should have been advertised
together with the eligibility criteria in respect
thereof. The submission of NIMHANS was that since
the post of Lecturer was lower than an Assistant
Professor's, it was not necessary to be advertised. If
this argument were accepted, it would amount to a
violation of Articles 14 and 16. The absence of an
advertisement necessarily deprived persons who
could have applied for the post, of the opportunity of
..𝓐..
Judgment 53 913wp7700.22+.odt
applying for the post. The clause in the
advertisement which enabled the Selection
Committee to recommend the candidate for a lower
post if the candidate was not found suitable to fill the
post applied for, did not give NIMHANS the power
to appoint the recommended candidate against an
unadvertised post. Significantly, in the other
advertisements on record dated 6.12.1986 and
1.6.1989, the post of Assistant Professor and the post
of Lecturer were both advertised."
(38) There is no dispute over the above proposition,
however, as held in the judgment in the case of Food
Corporation of India vs. Ashis Kumar Ganguly (supra), delay
and/or latches on the part of a Government servant may deprive
him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of
the Constitution of India would not, in a situation of that nature,
be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those
who are alert and vigilant. In the present matter, the Respondent
No. 7 filed the Complaint after 21 years and the Authorities
acted on the basis of it without verifying the actual record before
the Deputy Director of Education while granting approval in
2003.
..𝓐..
Judgment 54 913wp7700.22+.odt
(39) Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 7 also placed
reliance on the judgment in the case of Nanasaheb Jadhav
(supra), however, the facts involved in the said matter are
different and distinguishable from the facts involved in the
present matter. In the said matter, the Petitioner was a legal
practitioner and invoked the public interest litigation
jurisdiction of the Court. The said P.I.L. was filed in the year
2018 and the hearing was commenced in February, 2021 and
was continued till 2022. In between, the Petitioner has raised a
matter of serious concern in the Petition. This Court placed
reliance in the judgment in the case of Kazi Lhendup Dorji v.
CBI, reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 116, where the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Paragraph No. 30 has held as under:-
" 30. Referring to the decision of the Supreme
Court in Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. CBI, reported in 1994
Supp (2) SCC 116, the amicus submitted that in view
of the seriousness of the allegations, viz. alleged
corrupt practices of a Chief Minister, and the need to
unearth the truth of such allegations, the Court held
that the petitioner in the public interest litigation
ought not to be non-suited on the ground of laches.
Paragraph 15 was placed, which reads as under:
..𝓐..
Judgment 55 913wp7700.22+.odt
"15. As regards delay in filing of writ petition we
find that after the issuance of the impugned
notification in 1987, efforts were made by the
Central Government during the period from
1988 to 1992 to persuade the Government of
Sikkim to accord the necessary consent and
when the said attempts failed, the petitioner
moved this Court in 1993. Having regard to the
seriousness of the allegations of corruption that
have been made against a person holding the
high public office of Chief Minister in the State
which have cast a cloud on his integrity, it is of
utmost importance that the truth of these
allegations is judicially determined. Such a
course would subserve public interest and public
morality because the Chief Minister of a State
should not function under a cloud. It would also
be in the interest of Respondent 4 to have his
honour vindicated by establishing that the
allegations are not true. The cause of justice
would, therefore, be better served by permitting
the petitioner to agitate the issues raised by him
in the writ petition than by non-suiting him on
the ground of laches."
(40) In the present matter, we do no see any public
interest but only it reveals that it is in the interest of the
..𝓐..
Judgment 56 913wp7700.22+.odt
Complainant who wants to become the Vice-Principal by
removing 7 teachers above him in seniority. As discussed earlier,
it can be seen how the personal interest of the Complainant is
involved in the matter.
(41) Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 7 also placed
reliance on the judgment in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya
Naidu (supra), however, the reliance is misplaced as in the said
matter, there was an element of fraud on the basis of the proved
fact and the decree obtained by practicing fraud is held as
nullity. In the present matter, there is no allegation of fraud
against the Petitioners.
(42) Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 7 also placed
reliance on the judgment in the case of Ajay Kumar Das (supra),
however, the issue involved in the said matter is altogether
different. The appointments were made by the Appointing
Authority, after his own services have been terminated.
Therefore, it was declared as nullity and it was held that there is
no necessity to issue notice to the appointee.
..𝓐..
Judgment 57 913wp7700.22+.odt
(43) Insofar as the judgment in the case of Gokul Narain
(supra) is concerned, the same is not applicable to the present set
of facts. In the said matter, the question of Section 47 of the Civil
Procedure Code was under consideration and it was held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court that the decree found to be a nullity and
non-est and its invalidity can be set up even at the stage of
execution or in a collateral proceeding. The Hon'ble Apex Court
considered the relevant provisions of CPC.
(44) Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 7 also placed
reliance on the judgment in the case of Upendra Singh (supra),
however, the facts involved in the said matter are
distinguishable. There was question of regularization of Ad-hoc
and temporary daily wage Employees. There is no such question
involved in the present matter. It is also held by Hon'ble Apex
Court in the above referred matter that the object of recruitment
to any such service or post is to secure the most suitable person
who answers the demands of the requirements of the object. In
case of public employment, it is necessary to eliminate the
arbitrariness and favouritism and introduce the uniformity of
standards and orderliness in the matter of employment.
..𝓐..
Judgment 58 913wp7700.22+.odt
(45) As already discussed above, we are of the considered
opinion that the due procedure was followed while appointing
all the Petitioners. Even if, it is presumed that there are
irregularity in the appointment of 2001, the complaint hit by
latches in fact, complaint is made with malifide intention so as to
get complainant appointed as Vice Principal superseding claim
of 7 teachers above the complainant. If his proposal and
complaint is seen together, it is abundantly clear that he has
suggested option to the Management that Management should
get in writing from those 7 teachers they voluntarily gave up
their claim of Vice Principalship and not claim any seniority.
(46) Admittedly, there is no provision of appointment of
Enquiry Committee as appointed by the Deputy Director of
Education. Even, there is no authority to SSC and HSC Board of
State of Maharashtra to pass impugned order. The Respondent
No. 7 and the Authorities failed to consider the record placed by
the Management on record. There were certificate of Backward
Cell in respect of roster, so also the Management has placed on
record the then existing strength. It is on record that when this
Court was directed to the learned AGP to place on record the
..𝓐..
Judgment 59 913wp7700.22+.odt
documents submitted to the Deputy Director of Education in the
year 2002-03, it was informed by the learned AGP that record
was shifted from Zero Mile, Nagpur to Dhantoli, Nagpur in the
year 2018 and when search was carried out, the said file is not
traceable. This communication of the Deputy Director of
Education dated 13/08/2025 is taken on record and marked as
"X" for identification.
(47) It can be seen that Report of Inquiry Committee
constituted by Deputy Director of Education, in our considered
opinion, was illegal. Moreover, Report is dated 30.03.2022. As
per communication, the record is not traceable since 2018
therefore, the entire inquiry was conducted without perusing
the record and then submitted to the Deputy Director of
Education. The reference of the matter to SSC Board is also
without jurisdiction as no conditions are existing to refer the
matter to the Board. There is no allegations on the teachers that
they have played any fraud or misrepresentation or they are
involved in any act which having moral turpitude. After 21
years, the Board - Respondent No.2 issued order for termination
of the said 7 teachers with recovery of salary of 21 years. So far
..𝓐..
Judgment 60 913wp7700.22+.odt
as Mrs. Lule is concerned, she has already retired in the year
2016, her pension was stopped and recovery was also directed.
In our considered opinion, this action is taken at the behest of
Complainant, there is no consideration about laches in the
report of the Committee illegally constituted. For personal
interest, Respondent No. 7 - Complainant has set in motion to all
authorities without any valid reason. As held in Pandurang
Kanekar (supra), the main circumstance for reconsideration of
approval are fraud or misrepresentation or suppression of the
material fact in the process of the appointment as well as in the
process of according approval. In that event, the said relevant
facts are required to be spelt out in the show cause notice.
(48) In view of the judgment of Shivanee Prasanna
Deshpande (supra), it is settled principle of law that unless the
power of review is specifically or by necessary implication
provided, the authority cannot review its own order. If earlier
authority has granted approval to the Petitioners' appointment
may be erroneously, the said cannot be made a ground to recall
the same and pass the contrary order unless the case of fraud,
misrepresentation or suppression is made out. Review after a
..𝓐..
Judgment 61 913wp7700.22+.odt
long period of time when legitimate expectations arise, parties
settle in life are highly inequitable. Such powers would be
arbitrarily used. If in spite of having no fault on the part of
teachers, their services are directed to be terminated with
recovery, then each and every Officer responsible for not taking
cognizance in 21 years, are also liable to be terminated with
recovery. All the Government machinery was set in motion on
behest of Complainant. In fact, the Complainant filed complaint
with oblique motive to get promotion of Vice Principal and
Authorities without verifying record, supported the case of the
Complainant.
(49) It is a matter of record that there is staff justification
issued regularly. The inspection of the School is also conducted
regularly. As such, if there was any deficiencies, the concerned
Officer ought to have brought to the notice of the Headmaster
and Management. In view of this, unnecessary exercise to give
benefit to the Respondent No. 7 is strongly condemned. The
Petitioners, at their verge of retirement, are required to suffer
mental agony, insecurity after 21 years of service only because of
the false and frivolous compliant after 21 years filed by
..𝓐..
Judgment 62 913wp7700.22+.odt
Respondent No. 7. The Respondent No. 7 never challenged
seniority published earlier in 2004 i.e. his date of appointment.
(50) In our considered opinion, the impugned orders
passed by the Respondents - Authorities do not sustain the
scrutiny of law, and hence, liable to be quashed and set aside and
the Respondent No. 7 is liable to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/-
(Rs. Five Thousand Only) to each of the Petitioner.
(51) Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
(a) The Writ Petitions are allowed.
(b) The common impugned order dated 24/11/2022 passed
by the Respondent - Chairman, Maharashtra State
Secondary and Higher Secondary Board, Nagpur and
the orders dated 30/11/2022 and 04/07/2022 passed by
the Respondent - Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur respectively are hereby quashed and set aside.
..𝓐..
Judgment 63 913wp7700.22+.odt
(c) The approval granted to the appointments of the
Petitioners is hereby restored.
(d) The Respondent No. 7 shall pay costs of Rs. 5,000/-
(Rs. Five Thousand Only) to each of the Petitioner
within a period of one month.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending
Application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) (M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
..𝓐..
