[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Adarsha Shikshan Sanstha, Sawari, ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, ... on 1 April, 2026
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2026:BHC-NAG:5110-DB
Judgment 1 J-W.P. No.2154.2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2154 OF 2021
1) Adarsha Shikshan Sanstha, Sawari,
Post- Jawaharnagar, Tah. Dist.-Bhandara,
through its Secretary.
2) Gram Vikas Highschool, Kondhi/
Jawaharnagar, Tah. Dist- Bhandara,
through its Headmaster.
3) Shri. Pratap Dudhram Ramteke,
Aged- 52 Years, Occupation-Service.
R/O. Awarmara, Post- Navegaon,
Tah.- Kuhi, Dist.- Nagpur. ..... PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
1) State of Mahrashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2) Director of Education,
Education Directorate, Pune-01.
3) Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
4) The Education Officer (Sec.),
Zilla Parishad, Bhandara. .... RESPONDENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P. N. Shende, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri N. R. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MRS. M. S. JAWALKAR AND
NANDESH. S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
Judgment 2 J-W.P. No.2154.2021
DATE ON RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 04.03.2026
DATE ON PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 01.04.2026
JUDGMENT :
(Per - Smt. M. S. JAWALKAR, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The Petitioners by this petition are challenging the
action of Respondent No. 2 - Director of Education, Pune and
Respondent No. 4 -Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Bhandara, in not granting approval to Petitioner No. 3 as a
Librarian (Full-time).
3. It is submitted by the Petitioner No. 3 that he is duly
qualified 12th Science and possesses a Certificate in Library
Science, belongs to the Scheduled Caste category, and was
appointed as a Librarian (Part-time) on 26.06.1997 after a proper
selection process. Petitioner No. 1 runs Petitioner No. 2 School,
which has been receiving 100% Grant-in-aid since the Academic
Year 1996-97.
4. Despite this, the proposal for approval of Petitioner No.
3 as Librarian (Full-time) was not decided by the authorities.
Judgment 3 J-W.P. No.2154.2021
Petitioner No.3 has served in the Petitioner No. 2 School for more
than 25 years with an unblemished record and has attained
permanency as per the rules of The Maharashtra Employees of
Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for
short the "MEPS Act"), yet his appointment remains unapproved,
forcing the Institution to pay his salary from its own funds.
5. In terms of the Government Resolution dated
03.08.2006, once the school strength exceeded 1000 students in
the Academic Year 2007-08, it became entitled to a Full-Time
Librarian post. Accordingly, Petitioner No. 3 was appointed as a
Librarian (Full-time) on 23.06.2007, and the proposal was
forwarded to the State Government on 24.04.2009. However, the
said proposal has remained pending since 2009. Repeated
representations dated 20.04.2019, 03.07.2020, 30.12.2020, and
11.01.2021 yielded no response. Ultimately, by order dated
27.06.2022, the proposal was rejected on the ground that the
initial Librarian (Part-time) appointment of the Petitioner No.3 was
not approved.
6. The Petitioners submit that such rejection is arbitrary
and unfair. After keeping the matter pending for years, the
Judgment 4 J-W.P. No.2154.2021
Respondents cannot deny approval on technical grounds and take
advantage of their own inaction.
7. As against this, Respondent No. 1 submits that the
rejection order dated 27.06.2022 is legal and justified, as the very
basis of claim of the Petitioner is flawed. The Petitioner No. 3 was
appointed as a Librarian (Part-time) on 26.06.1995, without any
sanctioned post and without prior permission of the Education
Department, even though, the school became eligible for 75%
grant-in-aid from 01.06.1995. The record, including the order
dated 09.04.1996, communication dated 07.06.2008, and staff
justifications from 1995-96 to 2006-07, clearly shows that no post
of Librarian (Part-time) was ever sanctioned and the appointment
remained unapproved throughout.
8. It is further submitted that the subsequent appointment
as Librarian (Full-time) on 23.06.2007 does not cure this defect.
Though certain recommendations were made by subordinate
authorities through communications dated 24.04.2009,
10.04.2019, and 20.04.2019, the same cannot confer any right,
especially when the initial appointment itself was not approved.
Even where staff justification for the years of 2018-19 refers to
Judgment 5 J-W.P. No.2154.2021
a Librarian (Full-time) post, it is subject to Government sanction,
which was never granted. In these circumstances, the Petitioners
cannot claim approval or salary from the State.
9. Respondent No. 2 submits that the present petition is
premature, as the proposal regarding sanction and approval of the
post held by Petitioner No. 3 is still under consideration of the
State Government. It is submitted that, pursuant to the order dated
29.03.2022, Respondent No. 2 has actively processed the matter
and sought necessary guidance from the Government vide
communications dated 15.02.2022 and 01.04.2022. It is further
submitted that the proposal forwarded by the Education Officer on
10.04.2019, along with subsequent reminders, has been duly
considered and placed before the competent authority, and
therefore no delay can be attributed to Respondent No. 2.
10. It is further submitted that the claim of the Petitioners
is otherwise not sustainable, as the initial appointment of
Petitioner No. 3 as a Librarian (Part-time) was never approved and
was not against a sanctioned post. In such circumstances, the
question of granting approval to the upgraded Full-Time post does
not arise as a matter of right. Though staffing patterns in later
Judgment 6 J-W.P. No.2154.2021
years indicate availability of a Librarian (Full-time) post, the same
is subject to Government sanction and policy decisions, and the
proposal in that regard is still pending for consideration.
11. Respondent No. 4 submits that, as per the record, no
post of Part-time or Full-time Librarian was sanctioned in the
Petitioner No. 2 school from 2007-08 to 2014-15, and no staff
justification for non-teaching staff was issued for 2015-16 to 2017-
18. Though a Librarian (Full-time) post appears in 2018-19, the
same is subject to Government sanction under Resolutions dated
28.01.2019 and 07.03.2019, which are themselves under
challenge and subject to interim order dated 14.02.2022 in Writ
Petition No.5058/2021, before the Principal Seat of this Court. It is
further submitted that under the MEPS Act and Rules, Respondent
No. 4 only disburses grant-in-aid for sanctioned and approved
posts, and since the post held by Petitioner No. 3 was never
sanctioned or approved, no liability arises; accordingly, the
proposal was rejected vide order dated 27.06.2022, and the
petition deserves to be dismissed.
12. Heard learned Counsel for both parties at length and
perused the documents filed on record.
Judgment 7 J-W.P. No.2154.2021
13. It is an admitted fact that Petitioner No.3 was
appointed as Librarian (Part-time) on 26.06.1997. At the time of
initial appointment, the School was not receiving grant-in-aid
facility therefore, appointment was not approved by the Education
Officer. It is subsequently admitted to 100% grand-in-aid facility
from the year 1996-97, as the strength of student in the year 1995-
96 was more than 500. Therefore, part time vacancy of librarian
was created in the petitioner School. Accordingly, selection process
started by following due procedure i.e. publication of
advertisement and interview as per Section 5 and 9 of the MEPS
Act. In view thereof, the Petitioner No.3 also made an application
for the aforesaid post of Librarian (Part-time). He was selected
after successful in interview and came to be appointed on
probation for the period of two years.
14. After the School started receiving 100% grand-in-aid,
the proposal of the Petitioner No.3 was forwarded by Petitioner
No.2 - School to the Respondent No.4 for grant of approval,
however, no decision was taken by the Respondent No.4. As there
was no decision on the proposal taken by Respondent No.4, the
Judgment 8 J-W.P. No.2154.2021
Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are paying the regular salary to the
Petitioner No.3.
15. There is a Government Resolution (GR) issued on
03.08.2006 and decided that if the strength of student in any
school crosses 1000, then the said school would be entitled to get
sanction post of Librarian (Full-time). This resolution is passed in
pursuance to Report of Chiplunkar Committee. By this GR the
private schools wherein there are more than 1000 students and
candidate is working as Part-time Librarian on sanction post of
Librarian (Part-time) for more than 5 years, all these Part-time
Librarians are eligible for upgradation as Librarian (Full-time),
subject to condition mentioned in the said GR. In view of this
condition, it is necessary that the appointment on Part-time
Librarian ought to be as per provisions of MEPS Act and it has to
be approved by the Competent Authority to its appointment on
Librarian (Part-time). It is also made clear by the GR that after
upgradation in Librarian (Full-time), it will be treated as new
appointment and the candidate will not get benefit of his earlier
service as Librarian (Part-time).
Judgment 9 J-W.P. No.2154.2021
16. It is grievance of the Petitioners that if Staff
Justification of 2007-08 is seen, there is one post of Librarian
(Full-time) sanctioned for the year 2007-08. For the year 2008-09,
one post of Librarian (Part-time) was sanctioned. For the year
2018-19, no post is shown as part-time or full-time Librarian
sanctioned as on 01.10.2018. For the year 2018-19, for the class 8
to 12 there is one past of Librarian (Part-time) appears to be
sanction on 18th November, 2019. In the year 2018-19, class 8 to
12 one Librarian (Full-time) post shown as sanctioned. It was
made clear by the Staff Justification that this post will not be
considered as the sanctioned, till they get sanctioned by the
Government.
17. It appears that the Deputy Director of Education vide
its Communication dated 24.04.2009 to the Upper Secretary,
School Education and Sport Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
informed that Gram Vikas High School, Kondhi, District Bhandara
is having strength of more than 1000 students from 2007-08 and
in view of the GR dated 25.11.2005, the said School is entitled for
post of one Librarian (Full-Time) from 2007-08. The Education
Officer gave his opinion that the Petitioner No.3 - Pratap Ramteke,
Judgment 10 J-W.P. No.2154.2021
who is working as Librarian (Part-time) since 1998, can be
upgraded to the post of Librarian (Full-time), after granting
approval to his services of Librarian (Part-time). The Deputy
Director of Education forwarded the said proposal to the Upper
Secretary, School Education and Sport Department, Mumbai
(Annexure-V page 23). The School forwarded a fresh proposal on
03.07.2020 (Annexure-VI) to the Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Bhandara for grant of approval from the date when
the school came on 100% grant-in-aid basis to the post of Librarian
(Part-time), which is occupied by Petitioner No.3 - Pratap Ramteke
since 1997. There are repeated correspondence to the Education
Officer for grant of approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.3.
18. It appears that on 20.04.2019, the Deputy Director of
Education, Nagpur forwarded the said proposal for grant of
approval to the Director of Education, Pune (Annexure-VII). The
Director of Education, Pune vide its communication dated
27.06.2022 informed that there was no sanction to the
appointment of Petitioner No.3 by the Education Officer and,
therefore, he cannot be upgraded as a Librarian (Full-time). The
order is under challenge in this Petition as well as the Petitioner
Judgment 11 J-W.P. No.2154.2021
No.3 seeking direction to the Education Officer to grant approval
to his appointment as Librarian (Part-time) and thereafter for
upgraded as Librarian (Full-time).
19. The learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently
submitted that the said post was not sanctioned and therefore
there cannot be any upgradation in view of GR dated 03.08.2006.
In our considered opinion, the order passed by the Director of
Education is patently erroneous, in fact, the Education Officer
himself forwarded the proposal to the Deputy Director of
Education for grant of approval to the post of Librarian (Full-time)
to Pratap Ramteke. The letter dated 30.12.2020 issued to the
Headmaster, make it clear that in response to the proposal in
respect of Petitioner No.3, for grant of approval as a Librarian
(Part-time) since 01.07.1997 was forwarded to the Director of
Education, Pune. The Deputy Director of Education also forwarded
a latter to the Director of Education, Pune stating therein that the
proposal in respect of Petitioner No.3 - Pratap Ramteke showing
factual report by the Education Officer, Bhandara.
20. It is not the case that there was no post approved of
Librarian (Part-time) nor it is the case of respondent that post
Judgment 12 J-W.P. No.2154.2021
filled in without following due procedure. In fact, the approval was
neither rejected nor granted to the services of Petitioner No.3 for
the Librarian (Part-time). This same needs to be approved.
Admittedly, now strength of the student is more than 1000 and
accordingly school is eligible for one post of Librarian (Full-time).
The reason given by the Upper Secretary is patently erroneous
without application of mind. The case of the Petitioners is that, the
Petitioner No.3 was working since 1997 as a Librarian (Part-time)
and, therefore, approval to his appointment as well as Librarian
(Part-time) is required to be issued first thereafter, his post can be
upgraded as a Librarian (Full-time). This aspect is not at all
considered by the Upper Secretary, School Education and Sports
Department, Mumbai. Accordingly, the impugned communication
dated 27.06.2022 is liable to be quashed and set aside. As such, we
proceed to pass the following order :
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 27.06.2022, passed by
Respondent No.1 - Secretary, School Education and
Sports Department, Mumbai is hereby quashed and set
aside.
(iii) The Respondent No.4 - Education Officer
(Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Bhandara is hereby
Judgment 13 J-W.P. No.2154.2021
directed to grant approval to the appointment of
Petitioner No.3 as a Librarian (Part-time) from the
date, when the School started receiving 100% grant-in-
aid and then Librarian (Full-time) w.e.f. 01.07.2007.
(iv) The Respondent No.1 is hereby directed to grant
sanction to the post occupied by Petitioner No.3 on
Librarian (Part-time) and then Librarian (Full-time)
within a period of two months.
21. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as
to costs. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Kirtak
Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 01/04/2026 18:08:44
