[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Vaibhav Shriram Kolapkar vs The State Of Maharashtra Thru. G. P. Anr ... on 12 January, 2026
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2026:BHC-AS:1718-DB
sr.32-33-39.wp.13660.2025.odt
Digitally
signed by IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
VINA
VINA ARVIND
ARVIND KHADPE CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
KHADPE Date:
2026.01.16
11:52:17
+0530 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13660 OF 2025
Balasaheb Shivaji Devmunde ....Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents
WITH
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13700 OF 2025
Atul Nandu Jadhav ....Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents
WITH
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16433 OF 2025
Vaibhav Shriram Kopapkar ....Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents
----
Mr. Rahul S. Kadam a/w Mr. Vedant Babar for the Petitioners.
Ms. P. N. Diwan, AGP for the Respondent State in WP/13660/2025.
Mr. A. I. Patel, Addl. GP a/w Mr. V. B. Badgujar, AGP for the State
in WP/13700/2025 and WP/16433/2025.
----
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 12th JANUARY, 2026
P.C. :-
1. In all these Petitions, after hearing the learned Advocate
for the Petitioners and the learned AGP on behalf of the respective
Vina Khadpe 1 of 7
sr.32-33-39.wp.13660.2025.odt
Respondents, the learned Advocate for the Petitioners requested that
the Education Officer may initiate a detailed inquiry and pass an
appropriate order while dealing with the proposal for appointment
of the Petitioners.
2. The learned AGP points out from the record that there
are some glaring aspects in this case. A single glance would create
an impression that all these appointments are bogus appointments.
He submits that in the event the Petitioners desire a detailed
investigation and inquiry, the view taken by this Court vide its order
dated 11th September, 2025 in WP/11391/2024 and group of cases
(Bhairavnath Charitable Trust Through Its Secretary and Ors. Vs.
The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary and ors.),
especially the observations made by this Court in paragraphs 5 & 6,
would be made applicable to these cases.
3. For the sake of brevity, we are reproducing paragraphs
5 and 6 of the order dated 11th September, 2025 in Bhairavnath
Charitable Trust (supra), hereunder :-
5. The Division Bench of this Court at the
Aurangabad Bench has delivered a judgment in
the case of Pramod Prabhakar Pokale v/s. State
of Maharashtra and Others' concluding that
Vina Khadpe 2 of 7
sr.32-33-39.wp.13660.2025.odt
once an approval is legally granted to the
appointment of an employee, while entertaining
a proposal for e.g. for transfer to the aided
establishment or for any other reason including
the reason for grant of Shalarth ID, the
approval can not be cancelled. It is only when
the department notices a glaring fraud in the
authenticity of such approval order, that a
particular procedure can be followed to deal
with the situation.
6. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances
discussed above, we find that it would be
appropriate to direct the authority dealing with
the proposals forwarded by the management
with regard to these Petitioners, to verify the
approvals granted to these Petitioners. The
Education Officers, who have signed the orders
issuing approvals in the Camps held by the
department, shall also be called upon to make a
statement as regards their signatures on the
approval orders. It would be in the interest of
justice that the management as well as the
concerned employees are given an opportunity
of personal hearing in order to find out whether
the authenticity of approval orders could be
questioned."
4. By way of example, we find that in the case of
Balasaheb Shivaji Devmunde, the Shikshan Pramukh, Shikshan
Mandal, Pune Municipal Corporation has issued a certificate to the
Petitioner indicating that he is an Assistant Teacher and in order to
receive training in the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, he was relieved from
the duties on 9th March, 2013. The Petitioner claimed to have been
Vina Khadpe 3 of 7
sr.32-33-39.wp.13660.2025.odt
appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 13th June, 2014. The
appointment order of the Petitioner placed before us is dated 13 th
June, 2014. The joining report is dated 16th June, 2014.
5. The Government seems to have granted 20% of Grant-
in-Aid to the said Institution on 25th April, 2023 with effect from 1st
January, 2023. However, the impugned order dated 4 th September,
2025, does not carry reasons in justification of rejecting the proposal
for 20% Grant-in-Aid. It is simply stated in the remark column that
because the approval to the appointment of these Petitioners is not
mentioned in the outward register, and there is no trace of the
approval orders, the proposal cannot be entertained.
6. It is elementary that the selection process has to be
scrupulously followed by the Management. A proper appointment
order has to be issued by the competent Authority. The selection
process should indicate that the selection and appointment has been
done in adherence to the Rules and procedure applicable. The
Education Officer has practically passed a single sentence order
under the remarks column. It is only for this reason, that we are
required to set aside the impugned order. Had it been a reasoned
Vina Khadpe 4 of 7
sr.32-33-39.wp.13660.2025.odt
order, it would have indicated that the concerned Authority had
applied its mind and had appropriately assessed the proposals of
each of the Petitioners.
7. For the purpose of enabling a detailed inquiry and a
subjective assessment of each case, to be decided with a reasoned
order, that we are interfering with the impugned order.
8. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is partly
allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The
proposals of these Petitioners is restored to the file of the Education
Officer (secondary), Pune, Zilla Parishad.
9. We expect the Education Officer to reconsider the
proposals of these Petitioners by adverting to the view taken by us
in the above reproduced paragraphs 5 and 6 in Bhairavnath
Charitable Trust (supra). Similarly, the Education Officer would
consider the following aspects while passing an order on the
proposals tendered by the Management :-
(a) Whether the procedure required for carrying
out selection or appointment was followed by
Vina Khadpe 5 of 7
sr.32-33-39.wp.13660.2025.odt
the Management.
(b) Whether the advertisement was published in
largely circulated newspapers.
(c) Whether a legally constituted selection
Committee conducted the interviews of all the
candidates including these Petitioners.
(d) On the basis of the subjective assessment,
whether the Management has records to
indicate that a proper selection process was
followed while selecting and appointing the
Petitioners.
(e) In the event the Education Officer notices any
infirmities or deficiencies, he would pass a
reasoned order on each of the proposals of
these three Petitioners.
10. After the above stated exercise is completed, preferably
within a period of 60 days from today, a reasoned order would be
passed by the Education Officer within 30 days thereafter, and the
same would be communicated to the Management of the Trust as
well as the Head Master of the School, expeditiously and preferably
through an email. For the said purposes, the contesting Respondents
shall tender their email addresses to the Education Officer for easy
correspondence and service of orders on the Management as well as
the School.
Vina Khadpe 6 of 7
sr.32-33-39.wp.13660.2025.odt
11. The Writ Petitions are disposed off in the above terms.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Vina Khadpe 7 of 7
