Bombay High Court
Smt. Smita Ajay Rawat vs The Secretary Sevagiri Shikshan ... on 23 September, 2025
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
94. CIVIL WP-13203-23.docx
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 13203 OF 2023
Smita Ajay Rawat .. Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary,
Sevagiri Shikshan Sanstha & Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Parth Deshpande i/by Mr. V.B. Tapkir, Advocate for Petitioner
Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, Addl. G.P. with Ms. V.R. Raje, AGP for
Respondent Nos. 4 & 6
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 23, 2025
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Deshpande, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Ms.
Solunke, learned Addl. GP for Respondent Nos. 4 & 6. At the request
made by Mr. Deshpande considering the exigency mentioned by him
matter is taken up for hearing.
2. Present Petition impugns the judgment & order dated
29.03.2023 passed by School Tribunal, Pune. Record shows that
though notices have been issued to the Respondents previously and
service has been completed on all Respondents, Petition has not been
heard thereafter.
3. Today at the time of rising Mr. Deshpande would persuade the
Court to hear the Petition in view of the ignominy suffered by
Petitioner for being out of employment for several years. After hearing
1 of 4
94. CIVIL WP-13203-23.docx
Mr. Deshpande, I am inclined to take up the Petition. He would draw
my attention to the impugned judgment dated 29.03.2023 passed in
Appeal No. 25 of 2019. He would submit that Petitioner was
appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a non-aided school run by the
Educational Institution i.e. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on 01.03.2013. He
would submit that pursuant to the appointment of Petitioner,
Respondent No. 4 - Education Officer granted approval to the post of
Petitioner as Assistant Teacher in the non-aided school which was
against a clear and vacant post. He would submit that appointment of
Petitioner was made by following due process of law as per MEPS Act
and rules. To that effect he has drawn my attention to the averments
made in the Petition in paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 and would further
contend that Petitioner's services were continued even after she
completed her probation period in 2015 without any issue until 2019.
He would submit that despite Petitioner having continued with a clear
and unblemished record of service, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 terminated
her services by handing over a letter dated 27.12.2018 to her on the
ground that the post of Petitioner as Assistant Teacher was cancelled in
the staff approval granted by Respondent No. 4 - Education Officer.
This letter of Education Officer is dated 27.12.2018.
4. He would contend that even though reliance is placed by
Respondents on this letter, Petitioner was still allowed to continue with
2 of 4
94. CIVIL WP-13203-23.docx
her services as Assistant Teacher till 28.02.2019 and only w.e.f.
01.03.2019, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 restricted the Petitioner from
signing the muster. He would submit that being aggrieved with the
aforesaid action of Respondents, Petitioner knocked the doors of the
Tribunal by filing Statutory Appeal No. 25/2019 challenging her
termination / removal. It is in this proceeding that the impugned
judgment & order has been passed.
5. Mr. Deshpande would persuade the Court to consider the fact
that appointment of Petitioner was against a clear, vacant and
permanent post in the non-aided school and therefore despite
continuation of her service upto 2019, Respondents have abruptly
terminated her services on the innocuous ground of the said post
having been cancelled by Respondent No. 4 in 2018. An arguable case
is made out for issuance of notice. Issue notice to the Respondents
made returnable on 07.10.2025. Humdast permitted. In addition to
Court's notice, Petitioner is directed to serve copy of the Petition along
with copy of this order on the Respondents and inform them about
the next date of hearing by any permissible mode of service and file
appropriate affidavit of service with tangible proof thereof on or
before the next date.
6. Ms. Solunke, learned Addl. GP appears for Respondent Nos. 4
and 6. She will take appropriate instructions and file affidavit in reply
3 of 4
94. CIVIL WP-13203-23.docx
within a period of two weeks from today positively. Considering the
ignominy of Petitioner, there shall be no dereliction in filing the
affidavit in reply since in view of the facts narrated by Mr. Deshpande,
present Petition deserves to heard and decided peremptorily at the
time of admission itself. Copy of this order shall be served by Mr.
Deshpande on all unrepresented Respondents i.e. Respondent Nos. 1
to 3 and Respondent No. 4. They are directed to file affidavit in reply,
if any so that the present Petition can be heard further and decided
appropriately.
7. Stand over to 7th October, 2025.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2025.09.24
11:24:34 +0530
4 of 4
