[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Rameshwar S/O. Vishnupant Umak vs State Of Maha., Thr. Secy., Education ... on 7 March, 2026
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: M.S. Jawalkar
2026:BHC-NAG:3847-DB
wp 3549-2025.odt 1/9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3549 OF 2025
Rameshwar S/o. Vishnupant
Umak, Aged about 48 years,
Occ.: Nil, R/o. Ganuwadi, Near
Dastur Nagar, Amravati, Tah.
& Dist. Amravati.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra, through
its Secretary, Education
Department Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2. Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad Amravati.
3. Samta Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal, through President/
Secretary, Manjri-Mhasla,
Tq. Nandgaon Khandeshwar,
Dist. Amravati.
4. Samrat Ashok Vidyalaya,
through its Headmaster,
Manjari Mhasala, Tah.
Nandgaon Khandeshwar, Tah.
& Dist. Amravati.
...RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Smita Dashputre, Advocate for petitioner
Shri N.R. Patil, AGP for respondent/State
Ms Radhika Bajaj, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 & 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wp 3549-2025.odt 2/9
CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 25.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 07.03.2026
JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of parties.
2. The petition seeks a direction to the respondent No. 2,
Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati, to take action against
the respondent No. 3, Management, by stopping the salary grants
and non-salary grants and further action under the provisions of
the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of
Service) Rules, 1981. It further prays for a direction to the
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to join the petitioner on post created vide
Government Resolution dated 01.12.2023.
3. The facts, as can be seen from the petition, are that on
16.07.1997, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher at
a school run by the respondent No.3, Management. Petitioner
belongs to 'Dhoba' caste, which is a Scheduled Tribe. On
30.01.2017, the respondent, Management, sent a proposal for caste
verification, which was, however, invalidated. The challenge to the
said invalidation was upheld by this Court and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. Thereafter, on 03.11.2018, the respondent,
Management, terminated the services of the petitioner. The
challenge to the said termination also failed since the appeal
challenging the same before the School Tribunal was rejected.
4. On 06.07.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.8928/2015 passed an order to keep the employees whose caste
claims have been invalidated on a supernumerary post. In view of
the said order, the State Government issued a Government
Resolution on 01.12.2023 and thereby granted permission to keep
the petitioner on a supernumerary post.
5. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of making
several representations to the Management to absorb him on a
supernumerary post, in terms of Government Resolution dated
01.12.2023, the same had not been done. It can also be seen from
the writ petition that the challenge to the said Government
Resolution dated 01.12.2023 at the behest of the Management by
filing a Writ Petition No. 280/2024 was also withdrawn by said
Management. It is in this scenario that the present petition is filed.
6. We have heard Ms Smita Dashaputre, learned Counsel for the
petitioner, as also Shri N.R. Patil, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 & 2/State, and Ms Radhika Bajaj,
learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
7. We have also perused the record of the matter with the
assistance of the learned Counsel for the respective parties. It is
submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the action
of the respondent, Management, in view of the Government
Resolution dated 01.12.2023, in not permitting him to join the
supernumerary post is clearly erroneous and without any authority
of law. She further submits that, in fact, the Management, as well
as the Education Department, has committed contempt and
therefore directions are needed accordingly. She submits that the
entire exercise carried out by the Management is only with an aim
to harass the petitioner, and even if the challenge to the
Government Resolution dated 01.12.2023 has failed, the
respondent, Management, has failed to act in pursuance to the said
resolution. She therefore submits that this is a fit case to exercise
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. Per Contra, the learned Counsel for contesting respondent,
i.e., the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submits that the action is entirely
legal and valid. By taking us through the reply filed by the said
respondents, she submits that a finding of fraud has been recorded
by this Court, as also by the Scrutiny Committee in the order of
invalidation. By pointing us out paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the
order of the Scrutiny Committee, the learned Counsel submit that
there is a categorical finding that the petitioner has played fraud on
the constitution and has obtained a caste certificate of 'Dhoba'
Scheduled Tribe by way of suppressing the fact of his original caste
only with a view to obtain a job reserved for Scheduled Tribe
candidate.
9. She also points out the order of this Court in the earlier
round of litigation, and more particularly, in Writ Petition No.
835/2017, passed on 28.09 2018. By pointing out paragraph No.
11 of the said order, she submits that this Court, in the said matter,
has found that the petitioner has not approached it with clean
hands and has fabricated a story about the Scrutiny Committee
assuring him of protection in employment. She thus submits that
no right could have been accrued to the petitioner in view of the
findings of fraud recorded by the Scrutiny Committee, as also by
this Court. As far as the Government Resolution dated 21.12.2019
is concerned, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the
respondent Nos. 3 and 4, that it would not come in aid of the
petitioner, since it applies only to the persons whose claims have
been invalidated. She therefore tries to distinguish the said
Government Resolution in view of the finding of fraud as referred
to supra.
10. We have appreciated the contentions canvassed by the
learned Counsel for the respective parties. The differentiation tried
to be put by the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4
regarding the persons whose caste claims have been invalid
simpliciter on merits and whose caste claims have been invalidated
on the finding of fraud seems attractive at the first blush, but on a
deeper perusal is without any substance. The Government
Resolution dated 21.12.2019 was issued by the State after taking
into consideration the judgment in Chairman and Managing
Director, Food Corporation of India and others v. Jagdish Balaram
Bahira and others, (2017) 8 SCC 670.
11. A bare reading of the said Government Resolution would
reveal that there is no such differentiation as has been put forth or
tried to be canvassed by the learned Counsel for the respondent
Nos. 3 and 4. A finding of fraud may be a factor out of many for
invalidating the caste claim preferred by the respective applicants.
The State Government after considering all these facts, has chosen
to issue a Government Resolution. Since the challenge to the said
resolution at the behest of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has been
chosen to be withdrawn by it, the fact remains that the said
Government Resolution dated 21.12.2019 has attained finality
12. It is also a matter of fact that vide Government Resolution
dated 01.12.2023, in which the name of the petitioner is
specifically mentioned, states that a supernumerary post for the
employees mentioned therein has to be created for eleven months.
The said Government Resolution has attained finality since the
petitioner has chosen to withdraw the petition bearing Writ Petition
280/2024 on 25.02.2025. Thus, the fact remains that the
Government Resolution dated 01.12.2023, in which the name of
the petitioner appears, still holds the field. It is therefore obvious
that the action of the Management in not allowing the said
Government Resolution to take its effect cannot be countenanced.
Clause 2 of the said Government Resolution specifically states that
by adopting a humane approach, the persons named therein, which
includes the petitioner, are to be appointed by creating a
supernumerary post for eleven months. It was thus obligatory on
the Management to comply with the said Government Resolution
dated 01.12.2023. Non-compliance of the said Government
Resolution is clearly erroneous. Therefore, in our considered
opinion, the petition is liable to be succeed partly. In that view of
the matter, we pass the following direction:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is partly allowed.
ii) It is held that the action of the Management in not
permitting the petitioner to join on a supernumerary post for
eleven months as contemplated in the Government Resolution
dated 01.12.2023, is bad in law and the same is quashed and set
aside.
iii) It is further directed that the respondents should pay the
salary to the petitioner for the period from 01.12.2023 for eleven
months with all benefits.
13. The petition is allowed in the above terms.
14. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
15. After pronouncement of the judgment and the Writ Petition
being allowed, the learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4
seeks stay to the effect and operation of this judgment so that the
said judgment can be challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
16. In view of the directions we have made in the judgment, the
effect and operation of the judgment is stayed for four weeks from
today and the stay would automatically lapse after the expiration of
the period of four weeks.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Jayashree..
