Bombay High Court
Praful Manohar Kale And Others vs Deputy Director Of Education, Nagpur … on 21 April, 2026
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2026:BHC-NAG:6138-DB
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
1/140
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NOS. 7441, 5633, 5464, 7393, 5866,
6333, 4010, 6329, 6336, 5179, 6330, 6332, 6331, 6328,
7413, 6384, 7381, 6383, 6038, 6037, 6039, 6040, 6475,
6477, 5855 & 7043 OF 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NOS. 7441 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:- 1. Shrikant Ganpatrao Pawar,
Aged about 41 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No. 53, Near Datta Mandir,
Bandu Soni Layout, Parsodi, Gayatri
Nagar, Nagpur- 440022.
2. Meenakshi Shashikant Rangari,
Aged about 38 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Petrol Pump (Jawahar Nagar),
Thana, Bhandara- 441903.
3. Pravin Kewalramji Churad,
Aged about 41 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. House No. 6557/193,
Hudkeshwar Road, Near N.I.T.
Ground, New Subhedar Layout,
Ayodhya Nagar, Nagpur- 440024.
4. Sameer Babarao Dahake,
Aged about 33 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Yedlapur, Post. Dhanora, Tah.
Jhari, Dist. Yavatmal- 445305.
5. Bhagirath Mangu Rathod,
Aged about 38 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Manjargawla, Post. Belora, Tah.
Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal- 445219.
6. Swati Vijay Bharadwaj,
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
2/140
Aged about 38 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No.3, Ambazari Road,
Madhav Nagar, Nagpur- 440010.
7. Sunil Punjabrao Pawar,
Aged about 47 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Navjeevan Chowk. Ramji Baba
Nagar, Morshi, Dist. Amravti- 444905.
8. Hitesh Premsingh Pawar,
Aged about 33 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Tulsi Nagar, Post. Kali, Tah.
Mahagaon, Dist. Yavatmal- 445204.
9. Roshni Dewaji Mulmule,
Aged about 39 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Ward No. 2, Walni Basti, Walni
Mines Rohana. Walni Colliery, Nagpur-
441102.
10. Prerna Prabhakar Pirke,
Aged about 37 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No. 64, Galli No. 2, Behind
Sai Mandir, Ayodhya Nagar, Nagpur-
440024.
11. Pravin Rajkumar Gajbhiye,
Aged about 39 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Buddha Ward, Bela, Bhandara-
441906.
12. Ganesh Prabhudas Chowdhary,
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Kalamgaon Ganna, Tah.
Sindewahi, Chandrapur-441222.
13. Mahesh Wasudeo Thengne,
Aged about 36 years, Occ. Service,
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
3/140
R/o. Vitthalwadi, Ward No.3, Near
Mahavir Bhawan, Wani, Dist.
Yavatmal- 445304.
14. Dhananjay Gopichand Indurkar,
Aged about 44 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No. 70, Near Hanuman
Mandir, Manish Layout, Swawlambi
Nagar, Nagpur- 440022.
15. Roshni Vijayrao Yewle,
Aged about 32 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Dehankar Layout, Katol, Nagpur-
441302.
16. Kiran Prakashrao Samarth,
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Sandhenagar, Alankar Nagar,
Besa, Pavti Nagar, Nagpur- 440027.
17. Kunal Dheeraj Pathak,
Aged about 33 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No. 49/A, Vasant Nagar,
Near Hanuman Mandir, Galli No. 8,
Bhagwan Nagar, Nagpur- 440027.
18. Deepak Ganpatrao Pawar,
Aged about 53 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No.53, Datta Mandir Road,
Near Datta Mandir, Bandu Soni
Layout, Parsodi, Gayatri Nagar,
Nagpur- 440022.
19. Surekha Kailas Aade,
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Tulsi Nagar, Kali Daulat Mine,
Yavatmal- 445204.
20. Manoj Ashok Mankar,
Aged about 34 years, Occ. Service,
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
4/140
R/o. Plot No.5, In front of Kadu Petrol
Pump, Katol, Dist. Nagpur- 441302.
21. International Convent Marathi Uccha
Prathmik Shala, Through its
Headmaster, Having its address at
Dambhare Layout, Nagpur.
22. Manjusha Convent Marathi Uccha
Prathmik Shala, Through its
Headmaster, Having its address at Old
Mangalwari, Kumbharpura, Nagpur.
23. Gyanmandir Shikshan Sanstha,
Through its Secretary, Having its
address at Madhav Nagar, Nagpur.
24. Manjusha Shikshan Sanstha, Through
its Secretary, Having its address at
Madhav Nagar, Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:- 1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its secretary, School Education
& Sports Department, Mantrayalaya,
Mumbai- 440032.
2. Commissioner (Education),
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Dr. Annie Besant Road, Pune-411001.
3. The Director of Education (Primary),
Central Building, Dr. Annie Besant
Road, Pune - 411001.
4. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Balbharati Building,
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
5/140
Near NMC Garden, Dhantoli, Nagpur -
440012.
5. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
6. Chief Superintendent,
Pay & Provident Fund Unit (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Anand Parchure & Mr. Saurav Rajurkar, Advs. for the petitioners.
Mr. D.V.Chauhan, GP with Mrs.S.S.Jachak, AGP for the respondents-State.
Mr.M.M.Sudame, Sr.Adv. a/b Mr.Saransh Wasnik & Mr.Sheikh Majid, Advs.
for the respondents-Zilla Parishad Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NOS. 5633 OF 2025
PETITIONERS: 1. Ku. Harsha Vasanta Ghode,
Aged 32 Years, Occ.Service,
R/o. Dhangarpura, Hingna, Tah.
Hingna, Dist. Nagpur-441110.
2. Umesh Pralhad Rathod,
Aged 35 Years, Occ.Service,
R/o. At Post Adgaon, Tah. Pusad, Dist.
Yavatmal, Presently residing at
Nagpur.
3. Shri Sachin Nandkishor Mukkawar
Aged 39 Years, Occ.Service,
R/o. Riddhi Siddhi Apts. Opposite
Jayanti Nagari, 5, Besa, Nagpur.
4. Satish Dashrath Dahule
Aged 37 Years, Occ.Service,
R/o. At Post Sindhi, Tah. Maregaon,
Dist. Yavatmal, Present residing at
Nagpur.
5. Mahesh Dattatraya Tajne,
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
6/140
Aged 37 Years, Occ.Service,
R/o. C/o. Gayatri Primary School,
Gayatri Nagar, Nagpur.
6. Hemant Ratiram Lade,
Aged 38 Years, Occ.Service,
Jawahar Ward, Desaiganj, Gadchiroli.
Presently residing at Nagpur
7. Gayatri Prathamik Shala Nagpur, Thr.
Headmaster Address At Gayatri Nagar,
Nagpur.
8. Nirmal Education Bahu-uddeshiya
Sanstha, Nagpur, Thr. Secretary
Dattatray Nagar, Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: 1. State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary,
School Education And Sports Dept., ,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-440032.
2. Commissioner (Education),
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Dr. Annie Besant Road, Pune-411001.
3. The Director Of Education (Primary),
Central Building, Dr. Annie Besant
Road, Pune-411001.
4. The Deputy Director Of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur Balbharati
Building, Near NMC Garden, Dhantoli,
Nagpur-440012.
5. The Education Officer, (Primary), Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur.
6. Chief Superintendent, Pay And
Provident Fund Unit (Primary), Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
7/140
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Anand Parchure & Mr.Saurav Rajurkar, Advs. for the petitioners.
Mr. D.V.Chauhan, GP with Ms.S.S.Jachak, AGP for the respondents-State.
Mr.M.M.Sudame, Sr.Adv. a/b Mr.Sheikh Majid, Mr.Saransh Wasnik Advs.
for the respondents-Zilla Parishad Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NOS. 5464 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:- 1. Harsha Prabhakar Amrutkar,
Aged about 36 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Ward No. 3, Patel Nagar, Kanhan,
Nagpur.
2. Neelam Bindeshwari Prasad Pandey,
Aged about 38 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No. 6, Khadgaon Road, Near
SBI ATM, Kohale Layout, Post. Wadi,
Dist. Nagpur.
3. Janardhan Prakash Pimpalkar,
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Empirical Heights, Flat No. 302,
Butibori, MIDC Road, Nagpur.
4. Bhagyalaxmi Padmakar Kamone,
Aged about 40 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No. 61, Anand Society,
Renuka College, Besa Petro Pump,
Besa, Nagpur- 440037.
5. Akansha Abhilash Pawar,
Aged about 33 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No. 1, Kharbi Road, Near
Nagdwarswami Mandir, Sai Baba
Nagar, P.O. Mhalginagar, Dist. Nagpur-
440034.
6. Sneha Pandurang Jiwtode
Aged about 37 years, Occ. Service,
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
8/140
R/o. Kunbi Society, Bhadravati,
Chandrapur- 442902.
7. Vinayak Madhukar Pidurkar,
Aged about 38 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Nearby Navnath ITI, Yashwant
Apartment, Flat No. 401, Dighori,
Kirti Nagar, Nagpur.
8. Jaya Shankarrao Choudhari,
Aged about 37 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No. 14, Shri Hari Nagar
No.1, Manewada Road, Bhagwan
Nagar, Nagpur- 440027
9. Sandep Prabhakar Chatap,
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Service,
R/o.Chikali, Sindhola Mines,
Yavatmal- 445307.
10. Nilesh Pandharinath Bothale,
Aged about 34 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Ashtona, Yavatmal- 445308.
11. Naresh Madhukar Ghugul,
Aged about 38 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Near Janta High School,
Gurunagar, Ward No. 7, Wani,
Yavatmal- 445304.
12. Nitin Haribhau Kathole,
Aged about 41 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Near Sant Savata High School,
Plot No.6, Shrikrishna Nagar, Ayodhya
Nagar, Nagpur- 440024.
13. Lina Ranjitkumar Samrit,
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No. 60/61, Flat No. 401,
Ganraj Heights Apartment, Zingabai
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
9/140
Takli, Near Ashirwad School,
Mankapur, Nagpur- 440030.
14. Shilpa Dadaji Khobaragade,
Aged about 41 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Ward No. 8, Walmiki Nagar, Tah.
Mul, Dist. Chandrapur- 441224.
15. Dinesh Ramesh Jungari,
Aged about 37 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Bahiram Baba Nagar, Ward no. 6,
Ghughus, Near Bomle Petrol Pump,
Chandrapur.
16. Renuka Rajendra Choudhari,
Aged about 34 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Near Guru Chaya Colony,
Dwarka Nagar, Sai Nagar S.O.,
Amravati-444607.
17. Sakshi Sarang Baxi,
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Service,
R/o.Flat No.301, Jayshree Apartment,
Near Shani Dham, Shilpa Society,
Narendra Nagar, Vivekananda Nagar,
Nagpur- 440015.
18. Sheetal H. Bhaware,
Aged about 38 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. P.O. Sayatkharda Tah. Ghatanji,
Yavatmal- 445301.
19. Rajeshri Annanji Jilhare,
Aged about 43 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No. 70, Mahalaxmi Nagar
No.2, Manewada Road, Ayodhya
Nagar S.O., Nagpur- 440024.
20. Roshan Pandurang Mohadikar,
Aged about 46 years, Occ. Service,
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
10/140
R/o. House No. 367/B, Patvi Mandir
Galli, Golibar Chowk, Near
Mohadilkar Bichhayat Kendra, Golibar
Chowk, Nagpur- 440002.
21. Mangala Prashant Bhoyar,
Aged about 46 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. 5/1343, Sai Nagar, Behind Modi
Rice Mill, Marar Toli, Gondiya-
441614.
22. Prashant Bhagwan Talmale,
Aged about 46 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No. 10, Mangaldham
Society, Duttwadi, Nagpur- 440023.
23. Prashant Dayaramji Selokar,
Aged about 44 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Mangalwari Peth Road, Near
Hirawa Talaw, Mangalwari Peth,
Nagpur.
24. Kavita Dipak Ramteke,
Aged about 43 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Near Ramkrishna Hall, Plot
No.60, New Mangaldham Society,
Duttawadi, Wadi, Nagpur- 440023.
25. Pratibha Haridas Gajbhiye,
Aged about 37 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. House No. 1749/183, Namdev
Nagar, Nagpur.
26. Ashish Tulsiram Maski,
Aged about 34 years, Occ. Service,
R/o.Talathi Square, Ward No.3,
Maregaon, Yavatmal- 445303.
27. Pawan Shankarrao Perkunde,
Aged about 39 years, Occ. Service,
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
11/140
R/o. Plot No.25/A, Ishwar Nagar,
Behind Jattewar Sabhagruh, Lane
No.1, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur.
28. Mohanika Subhassh Chopane,
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Sawaria, Yavatmal-445304.
29. Nilesh Bansi Gadge,
Aged about 38 years, Occ. Service
R/o. Tukdoji Nagar Ward No. 6, Near
New Telephone Exchange Officer, At
P.O. Ghugus, Chandrapur.
30. Pankaj Deorao Derkar,
Aged about 36 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Post Nawegaon More, Tah.
Pombhurna, Dist.Chandrapur-442702.
31. Reena Gajanan Kawde,
Aged about 38 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Ward No.1, Mhasala Toli,
Nagpur- 441002.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:- 1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its secretary, School Education
& Sports Department, Mantrayalaya,
Mumbai- 440032.
2. Commissioner (Education),
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Dr. Annie Besant Road, Pune-411001.
3. The Director of Education (Primary),
Central Building, Dr. Annie Besant
Road, Pune - 411001.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
12/140
4. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Balbharati Building,
Near NMC Garden, Dhantoli, Nagpur -
440012.
5. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
6. Chief Superintendent,
Pay & Provident Fund Unit (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
7. Shastri Nagar Uccha Prathamik Shala,
Through its Headmaster, Shastri
Nagar, Nagpur.
8. Kusumtai Dhawde Uccha Prathmik
Kanya Shala, Through its Headmaster,
Jawahar Nagar, Nagpur.
9. Shrimati Yashodabai Dighorikar Uccha
Prathamik Shala, Through its
Headmaster, Narad Complex,
Wathoda, Nagpur.
10. Universal Public School, Through its
Headmaster, Jafar Nagar, Nagpur.
11. Vikas Public School, Through its
Headmaster, Janaki Nagar, Nagpur.
12. Sudarshan Uccha Prathmik Shala,
Through its Headmaster, Itwari,
Nagpur.
13. Mother's Convent, Through its
Headmaster, Jaripatka, Nagpur.
14. Jamdar Prathmik Shala, Through its
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
13/140
Headmaster, Mahal, Nagpur.
15. Public Prathmik Shala,
Through its Headmaster,
Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur.
16. Nutan Prathmik Shala,
Through its Headmaster,
Tah. Kuhi, Dist. Nagpur.
17. Vikas Public School,
Through its Headmaster,
Uday Nagar, Nagpur.
18. Sangeeta Uccha Prathmik Shala,
Through its Headmaster,
Vibobabhave Nagar, Nagpur-440017.
19. Indira Gandhi Uccha Prathmik Shala,
Through its Headmaster,
Itwari, Nagpur.
20. Sewasadan Prathmik Shala,
Through its Headmaster,
Sitabuldi, Nagpur.
21. Ladpura Prathmik Shala,
Through its Headmaster,
Itwari, Nagpur.
22. Nageshwar Prathamik Vidyalaya,
Through its Headmaster,
Old Mangalwari, Nagpur
23. Vidarbha Buniyadi Prathmik Shala,
Through its Headmaster,
Sakardara, Nagpur.
24. Manormabai Mundle Dharampeth
Marathi Prathmik Boys' School,
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
14/140
Through its Headmaster,
Dharampeth, Nagpur.
25. Shivaji Prathmik Shala,
Through its Headmaster,
Reshimbagh, Nagpur.
26. Gandhi Vidya Mandir,
Through its Headmaster,
Somwari Peth, Nagpur.
27. Shrimati Jaibai Hindi Prathmik Shala,
Through its Headmaster,
Samta Nagar, Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Anand Parchure & Mr. Saurav Rajurkar, Advs. for the petitioners.
Mr. D.V.Chauhan, GP with Ms.S.S.Jachak, AGP for the respondents-State.
Mr.M.M.Sudame, Sr.Adv. a/b Mr.Sheikh Majid, Mr.Saransh Wasnik Advs.
for the respondents-Zilla Parishad Nagpur.
Mr.K.V.Bhoskar, Adv.for the respondent No.20.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NOS. 7393 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:- 1. Bhushan Sudhakar Budhe,
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Ward No.2, Dhangarpura,
Hingna, Nagpur-441110.
2. Mohammad Sadique Akhtar,
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Urdu Primary School ke pas,
Ismail Pura, Kamptee, Kamthi City,
Nagpur-441002.
3. Shireen Kausar Syed,
Aged about 31 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. P.N.370, M.A.K. Azad Bunkar
Colony, Ashom Nagar, Dr. Ambedkar
Marg, Nagpur-440017.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
15/140
4. Darshana Ashok Raut,
Aged about 33 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Kale Layout, Power Station Katol,
Nagpur-441302.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:- 1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its secretary,
School Education & Sports
Department, Mantrayalaya, Mumbai-
440032.
2. Commissioner (Education),
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Dr. Annie Besant Road, Pune-411001.
3. The Director of Education (Primary),
Central Building, Dr. Annie Besant
Road, Pune - 411001.
4. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Balbharati Building,
Near NMC Garden, Dhantoli, Nagpur-
440012.
5. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
6. Chief Superintendent,
Pay & Provident Fund Unit (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
7. Sainath Prathamik Shala, Through its
Headmaster, Pragati Nagar, Nagpur.
8. Anjuman T.M. Urdu Uccha Prathamaik
Shala, Through its Headmaster,
Bhowar, Narkhed, Nagpur.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
16/140
9. Roshan Urdu Upper Primary School,
Through its Headmaster, Teka, Nagpur.
10. Late Kunal Uccha Prathamik Shala,
Through its Headmaster, Hudco Colony,
Nara Road, Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Anand Parchure & Mr. Saurav Rajurkar, Advs. for the petitioners.
Mr. D.V.Chauhan, GP with Ms.S.S.Jachak, AGP for the respondents-State.
Mr.M.M.Sudame, Sr.Adv. a/b Mr.Sheikh Majid, Mr.Saransh Wasnik Advs.
for the respondents-Zilla Parishad Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NOS. 5866 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:- 1. Shri Roshan Dilip Raut,
Aged about 34 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No. 52, Mahavishnu Nagar,
Near Gajanan Coaching Classes,
Narsala, Nagpur-34.
2. Mrs. Komal Sandip Pise
(Ku. Komal; Divakar Pandhare),
Aged 35 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. F/106, Srushti Enclave, 'B' wing,
behind HP Prtrol Pump, Bahadura,
Nagpur-34.
3. Mrs. Rupali Mahesh Jethe (Ku. Rupali
Jaideo Bhorjar), aged about 36 yrs,
Occ.Service, R/o. 30, Gurudev Nagar
Road, Beside HP Petrol Pump, Prashant
Nagar, Nagpur-09.
4. Mrs. Vaishali Prakash Bokde,
Aged 46 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o. C/o. R. A. Aware, 125, Shrinagar-2,
Manewada Road, Nagpur.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
17/140
5. Shri Kishor Upasha Madavi,
Aged 34 yrs, occ. Service,
R/o. At Parsodi, Post Temsana,
Tah. Kamptee, Dist. Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:- 1. State of Maharashtra, Through
its secretary, School Education
& Sports Department,
Mantrayalaya, Mumbai- 440032.
2. Commissioner (Education),
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Dr. Annie Besant Road, Pune-411001.
3. The Director of Education (Primary),
Central Building, Dr. Annie Besant
Road, Pune - 411001.
4. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Balbharati Building,
Near NMC Garden, Dhantoli, Nagpur -
440012.
5. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
6. Chief Superintendent,
Pay & Provident Fund Unit (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
7. Swargiya Sahebrao Bhise
Shikshan Sanstha, Nandanwan,
Nagpur, Through its Secretary/
President.
8. Harsh Vidyamandir, Saibaba
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
18/140
nagar, Kharbi, Nagpur, Through
its Headmaster.
9. Shri Sadashivrao Patil Shikshan
Sanstha, Kamptee, Tah. Kamptee,
Dist. Nagpur, Through its
Secretary/ President.
10. Nav Maharashtra Prathmik
Shala, Diamond Nagar, Kharbi Road,
Nagpur, through its Headmaster.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Anand Parchure & Mr. Saurav Rajurkar, Advs. for the petitioners.
Mr. D.V.Chauhan, GP with Ms.S.S.Jachak, AGP for the respondents-State.
Mr.M.M.Sudame, Sr.Adv. a/b Mr.Sheikh Majid, Mr.Saransh Wasnik,
Mr.A.Sonar, Mr.U.Khobragade, Advs.for the respondents-Z.P.Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NOS. 6333 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:- 1. Shilpa Tikaram Thakre,
Aged about 38 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Manohar Vihar Colony, Near
Vayusena Nagar, Nagpur.
2. Sandip Baburao Saratkar,
Aged about 54 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Near Hanuman Mandir, Jaitala,
Nagpur.
3. Sangita Devidas Motghare,
Aged about 46 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Anand Nagar, Binaki Layout, Dr.
Ambedkar Marg, Nagpur.
4. Nandini Niranjan Chikte,
Aged about 36 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Near Punya Dhaam Mandir,
Ingole Nagar, Hudkeshwar, Nagpur.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
19/140
5. Apurva Pankaj Bandawar,
Aged about 34 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Mahada Colony, Gadge Nagar,
Hingna Road, Nagpur.
6. Kavita Pravin Rampure,
Aged about 33 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. At Kalamba, Post. Yerla, Tah.
Katol, Dist. Nagpur.
7. Ashwini Yogeshwar Bire,
Aged about 37 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. At Post Bramhni, Tah.
Kalmeshwar, Dist. Nagpur.
8. Pradnya Anand Dumanwar
Aged about 36 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Near Hanuman Mandir, Laxmi
Nagar, Nagpur.
9. Jagdish Dinakar Dhenge,
Aged about 36 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Besa Road, Manewada, Nagpur.
10. Avinash Vasanta Aade,
Aged about 36 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Post Hudi Tal Pusad, Hudi Khurd,
Yavatmal.
11. Charan Das Prathmik Shala,
Through its Headmaster,
Having its address at Ahilya Nagar,
Nagpur.
12. Late Umashankar Mahalle Patil
Bahuudeshiya Shikshan Sanstha,
Through its Secretary,
Address at Yerkhed, Tah. Kamptee,
Dist. Nagpur.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
20/140
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:- 1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its secretary, School Education
& Sports Department, Mantrayalaya,
Mumbai- 440032.
2. Commissioner (Education),
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Dr. Annie Besant Road, Pune-411001.
3. The Director of Education (Primary),
Central Building, Dr. Annie Besant
Road, Pune - 411001.
4. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Balbharati Building,
Near NMC Garden, Dhantoli, Nagpur -
440012.
5. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
6. Chief Superintendent, Pay & Provident
Fund Unit (Primary), Zilla Parishad,
Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Anand Parchure & Mr. Saurav Rajurkar, Advs. for the petitioners.
Mr. D.V.Chauhan, GP with Ms.S.S.Jachak, AGP for the respondents-State.
Mr.M.M.Sudame, Sr.Adv. a/b Mr.Sheikh Majid, Mr.Saransh Wasnik,
Mr.A.Sonar, Mr.U.Khobragade, Advs.for the respondents-Z.P.Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NOS. 4010 OF 2025
PETITIONERS: - 1. Subhrat S/o Virendra Fuladi
Aged about 33 years,
Occ: Asst.Teacher,
R/o Nandanvan, Nagpur-440009.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
21/140
2. Krutika Chandrashekhar Belge,
Aged about 37 years,
Occ: Asst. Teacher,
R/o Pandit Nagar, Nagpur.
3. Shivani Sanjay Amte,
Aged about 30 years,
Occ: Asst. Teacher,
R/o Diamond Nagar, Nagpur.
4. Manisha Vasantrao Rewatkar,
Aged about 32 years,
Occ: Asst. Teacher,
R/o Hudkeshwar, Nagpur.
5. Vidya Gajanan Sanap,
Aged about 33 years,
Occ: Asst. Teacher,
R/o Sai Baba Nagar Kharbi Road,
Nagpur.
6. Hemant Baliramji Raut,
Aged about 35 years,
Occ: Asst. Teacher,
R/o Plot No. 196, Shrikrishna Nagar,
Manewada Road, Nagpur.
7. Rohini Pankaj Wanjari,
Aged about 38 years,
Occ: Asst. Teacher,
R/o. Plot No. 77, Kharbi Road,
Nagpur.
8. Ku. Samradni Prabhakar Kale,
Aged about 44 years,
Occ: Asst. Teacher,
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
22/140
R/o Sakkardara, Near Hanuman
Mandir, Nagpur.
9. Sau. Gauri Tushar Patte,
Aged about 39 years,
Occ: Asst.Teacher,
R/o Plot No. 109, Vaishanvi
Apartment, Narendra Nagar, Nagpur.
10. Manishkumar Keshavrao Ninawe,
Aged about 33 years,
Occ: Junior Clerk,
R/o Omkar Nagar, Besa Road,
Nagpur.
11. Prashant Uccha Prathmik Shala,
Through its Head Mistress,
Hiwri Nagar, Nagpur.
12. Keshao Nagar Uccha Prathamik Shala,
Through its Head Master, Jagnade
Chowk, Nagpur.
- VERSUS -
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary, Education
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-
440032.
2. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
3. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur.
4. Chief Superintendent,
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
23/140
Pay and Provident Fund Unit,
(Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Anand Parchure, Mr.Saurav Rajurkar & Mr.S.N.Fuladi,
Advs. for the petitioners.
Mr. D.V.Chauhan, GP with Ms.S.S.Jachak, AGP for the respondents-State.
Mr.M.M.Sudame, Sr.Adv. a/b Mr.Sheikh Majid, Mr.Saransh Wasnik Advs.
for the respondents-Zilla Parishad Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NOS. 6329 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:- 1. Rehana Parveen Azizuliah,
Aged about 54 years, Occ. Service,
R/o.77, Roshan Bag, Near Diwan
Urdu School, Bahdura Road, Kharabi,
Bhandewadi, Nagpur 440035.
2. Noorjahan Begum Mohd Farooque
Shaikh, Aged about 56 years, Occ.
Service, R/o. 476, Darsa Road, Near
Tehasildar Masjid, Bhutiya Darwaja
Mahal, VTC: Mahal S.O., Nagpur
440032.
3. Shalu Sanjay Pandel,
Aged about 47 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Karnal Masjid chya mage, 454/B
New Shukrwaru, Nagpur City H.O.,
Nagpur 440002.
4. Sneha Uddhavrao Kokode,
Aged about 33 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Behind Shivaji College Ramnagar,
Ward No. 8, Ghadchiroli 442605.
5. Swati Madhukar Manapure,
Aged about 33 years, Occ. Service,
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
24/140
R/o. Tah-Nagbhid, Moushi, Nagbhir,
Chandrapur 441206.
6. Manjusha Surendra Dhande,
Aged about 43 years, Occ. Service,
R/o.1, Govind Prabhu Nagar,
Hudkeshwar Road, Hudkeshwar Bk.,
Nagpur 440034.
7. Priyanka Tushar Sontakke,
Aged about 37 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. B-59, Behind Veterinary College,
Manavsewa Nagar, Seminary Hills,
Nagpur 440006.
8. Yogeshwari Nitin Hattimare,
Aged about 33 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No. 48, Umred Road,
Sarvashri Nagar, Dighori, Hanuman
Nagar, Nagpur 440009.
9. Sunaina Ravindra Gawali,
Aged about 40 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No. 33, Siddheshwar Wadi,
Near Navmaharashtra High School,
Kharbi Road, Diamond Nagar,
Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur 440009.
10. Rupesh Uddhao Chaple,
Aged about 34 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Amgaon, Gadchiroli-441207.
11. Chandrakant Anandrao Balbudhe,
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Ward No. 1, Bhuyar, Paoni. Dist.
Bhandara-441910.
12. Ajay Zanaklal Naik,
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Service,
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
25/140
R/o. C/o. Ajabraoji Kale, Plot No.804,
Near Hanuman Mandir, Jaitala,
Nagpur- 440022.
13. Atik Altaf Sheikh,
Aged about 32 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. House No. 489, Dasra Road,
Near Arab Ka Wada, Bhutiya Darwaja
Mahal, Mahal, Nagpur.
14. Mohammad Shakir Abdul Gaffar
Sheikh, Aged about 43 years, Occ.
Service, R/o. House No. 367, Near
Arab Well, Bhutiya Darwaja, Mahal,
Nagpur.
15. Gaurav Gangadhar Amle,
Aged about 32 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. House No. 971, Ward No. 1, Post
Makardhokada, Umred (Rural), Dist.
Nagpur.
16. Shagufta Parveen Haji Mohammad
Kalam, Aged about 33 years, Occ.
Service, R/o. Gandhi Sagar, Behind
Vidarbha Premier, Bhaldarpura,
Mahatma Fule Bazar, Nagpur.
17. Shweta Surajmal Sakhre,
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Nari Road, Patankar Chowk,
Tathaghat Colony, Jaripatka, Dist.
Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:- 1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its secretary,
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
26/140
School Education & Sports
Department, Mantrayalaya,
Mumbai- 440032.
2. Commissioner (Education),
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Dr. Annie Besant Road, Pune-411001.
3. The Director of Education (Primary),
Central Building, Dr. Annie Besant
Road, Pune - 411001.
4. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Balbharati Building,
Near NMC Garden, Dhantoli, Nagpur -
440012.
5. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
6. Chief Superintendent,
Pay & Provident Fund Unit (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
7. Dr. Nazma Heptullah Prathamik
School, Through its Headmaster,
Tajabad, Nagpur.
8. Gyan Vikas Uccha Prathmik Shala,
Through its Headmaster,
Shantinagar, Nagpur.
9. Omnagar Uccha Prathamik Shala,
Through its Headmaster,
Wathoda Layout, Nagpur.
10. Milind Uday Prathmik Shala,
Through its Headmaster,
Shantinagar, Nagpur.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
27/140
11. Pragati Prathamik Shala,
Through its Headmaster,
Wardha Road, Nagpur.
12. Ladpura Prathamik Shala,
Through its Headmaster,
Ladpura, Itwari, Nagpur.
13. Dr. Iqbal Urdu Upper Primary School,
Through its Headmaster, Pardi,
Nagpur.
14. Chaitanyeshwar Primary School,
Through its Headmaster, Salwa, Tah.
Kuhi, Dist. Nagpur.
15. Indira Amar Smruti Uccha Prathmik
Vidyalaya, Through its Headmaster,
Samta Nagar, Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Anand Parchure & Mr. Saurav Rajurkar, Advs. for the petitioners.
Mr. D.V.Chauhan, GP with Ms.S.S.Jachak, AGP for the respondents-State.
Mr.M.M.Sudame, Sr.Adv. a/b Mr.Sheikh Majid, Mr.Saransh Wasnik Advs.
for the respondents-Zilla Parishad Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NOS. 6336 OF 2025
PETITIONERS: 1. Wrushali Arvind Deshmukh,
Aged 44 Years, Occu. Service,
R/o. 6-134, Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur-
440024.
2. Swati Shanware (Kukade)
Aged 31 Years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Plot No. 35, Ramkrushna Nagar,
Umred Dighori, Nagpur440028.
3. Kavita Hanumant Londhe
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
28/140
Aged 38 Years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Pahune Layout, Kamtee, Road,
Dharmaraj Vidyalaya, Kamptee, Dist.
Nagpur.
4. Priyanka Ashok Shende
Aged 34 Years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Near Kurves School,
Kumbhartoli, Nagpur-440012.
5. Raksha Kishore Gore (Adikane)
Aged 36 Years, Occu. Service,
R/o 572-E, Surendra Ragadh, Kiran
Medical, Nagpur-440006.
6. Shivangi Pankaj Dongre
Aged 42 Years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Plot No. 465, A New Nandanwan
Layout, Gayatri Convent, New
Nandanwan, Nagpur-440009.
7. Harshlata Vijaykumar Donekar
Aged 39 Years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Plot No. 10B, Near Ramna
Maroti, Ramna Maroti, Nagpur-
440009.
8. Bharti Shankar Danao,
Aged 33 Years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Plot No. 147, Mahalaxmi Nagar,
Narsala Road, Nagpur-440034.
9. Akruti Pramod Deshmukh,
Aged 33 Years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Deep Nagar, Darda Nagar,
Wadgaon, Yavatmal.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
29/140
10. Pawan Deshmukh,
Aged 44 Years, Occu. Service,
R/o. C/o. Subhashrao Deshmukh Qt
No. 6-134, Chhota Tajbag Road,
Temple, Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur-
440009.
11. Monali Avikumar Bhoyar,
Aged 38 Years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Plot No. 63, Ramkrishna Nagar,
Behind Atul Lawn, Dighori
Hudkeshwar Khurd, Nagpur.
12. Jitendra Krushna Gandhare,
Aged 40 Years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Takalghat, Nagpur-441122.
13. Pallavi Vikash Kumbhalkar
Aged 34 Years, Occu. Service,
R/o. 142, Bhim Nagar, Rameshwari
Ring Road, Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: 1. State Of Maharashtra, Through its
Secretary, School Education And
Sports Dept., Mumbai, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-440032.
2. Commissioner (Education),
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Dr. Annie Besant Road, Pune-411001.
3. The Director Of Education (Primary),
Central Building, Dr. Annie Besant
Road, Pune-411001.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
30/140
4. The Deputy Director Of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur Balbharati
Building, Near Nmc Garden, Dhantoli,
Nagpur-440012.
5. The Education Officer, (Primary), Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur.
6. Chief Superintendent, Pay And
Provident Fund Unit, (Primary), Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur Zilla Parishad,
Nagpur.
7. Shri Santh Eknath Uccha Prathamik
Shala, Through its Headmaster,
Dighori, Nagpur.
8. Ajay Prathamik Shala, Thr. its
Headmaster, Manewada, Nagpur.
9. Bharat Uccha Prathamik Shala, Thr. its
Headmaster, Shende Nagar, Nagpur.
10. Lokanchi Prathmik Shala, Thr. its
Headmaster Shiraspeth, Nagpur.
11. Bhide Prathmik Shala, Thr. its
Headmaster, Sitabuldi, Nagpur.
12. Milind U.P.S., Thr. its Headmaster
Untkhana, Nagpur.
13. Shreyas Uccha Prathamik Shala, Thr.
its Headmaster Wardhaman Nagar,
Nagpur.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
31/140
14. Sangita Uccha Prathmik Shala, Thr. its
Headmaster Vinoba Bhave, Nagar,
Nagpur Wardhaman Nagar, Nagpur.
14. Sangita Uccha Prathmik Shala, Thr. its
Headmaster, Vinoba Bhave, Nagar,
Nagpur.
15. Ananta Uccha Prathmik Shala, Thr. its
Headmaster, Bail Bazar Kamptee,
Distt. Nagpur.
16. Manorama Bai Mundle Dharampeth
Prathmil Boys, School, Thr. its
Headmaster Dharampeth, Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Anand Parchure & Mr. Saurav Rajurkar, Advs. for the petitioners.
Mr. D.V.Chauhan, GP with Ms.S.S.Jachak, AGP for the respondents-State.
Mr.M.M.Sudame, Sr.Adv. a/b Mr.Sheikh Majid, Mr.Saransh Wasnik Advs.
for the respondents-Zilla Parishad Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NOS. 5179 OF 2025
PETITIONERS: 1. Priti Ashish Rewatkar,
Aged about 40 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No. 75, Gayatri Nagar,
Nagpur- 440022.
2. Archanadevi Dhanendra Pardi,
Aged about 37 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. House No. 143, Ward No. 04,
Hingna Road, Near C.R.P.F. Camp,
Bhim Nahar, Nagpur-440016.
3. Pranali Janrao Raut,
Aged about 39 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Near Shiv Mandir, 273, Tawkkal
Layout, Wadi, Nagpur- 440023.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
32/140
4. Vaidhahi Babarao Choudhari,
Aged about 36 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Ward No.3, Gotmare Layout,
Brahmani, Dist. Nagpur.
5. Karuna Harimohan Tonge,
Aged about 39 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Ward No. 2, Sonegaon, Post
Kalmeshwar, Dist. Nagpur- 441501.
6. Megha Arunrao Dhok,
Aged about 37 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No. 29, Kharbi Road, Near
Megha Dairy, Sai Nagar, Nagpur-
440034.
7. Smita Jagdish Thakre,
Aged about 37 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Gali No. 11, Ekatamata Nagar,
Nagpur- 440036.
8. Aatish Bandu Bobde,
Aged about 34 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Kangar Nagar, Rampur, Sasti
Dopatala Town Ship, Dhopatala,
Chandrapur- 442905.
9. Abhijit Ramdas Lambat,
Aged about 43 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Mata Mandir Ward,
Hinghanghat, Dist. Wardha-442301.
10. Venutai Saratkar Vidyaniketan
Prathamik Shala, Through its
Headmaster, Having address at
Radke Layout, Balaji Nahar, Hingna
Road, Nagpur- 440016.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
33/140
11. Srimati Radhabai Dhanwate Shikshan
Sanstha, Through its President,
Having address at Radke Layout,
Balaji Nahar, Hingna Road, Nagpur-
440016.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:- 1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary, School Education
& Sports Department, Mantrayalaya,
Mumbai- 440032.
2. Commissioner (Education),
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Dr. Annie Besant Road, Pune-411001.
3. The Director of Education (Primary),
Central Building, Dr. Annie Besant
Road, Pune - 411001.
4. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Balbharati Building,
Near NMC Garden, Dhantoli, Nagpur-
440012.
5. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur - 440001.
6. Chief Superintendent,
Pay & Provident Fund Unit (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur - 440001.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Anand Parchure & Mr. Saurav Rajurkar, Advs. for the petitioners.
Mr. D.V.Chauhan, GP with Ms.S.S.Jachak, AGP for the respondents-State.
Mr.M.M.Sudame, Sr.Adv. a/b Mr.Sheikh Majid, Mr.Saransh Wasnik Advs.
for the respondents-Zilla Parishad Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
34/140
WRIT PETITION NOS. 6330 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:- 1. Pratik Sanjayrao Kakde,
Aged about 31 years, Occ. Junior
Clerk, R/o. Sawarbandhe Layout,
Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur- 440024.
2. Payal Dnyanendra Jaiswal,
Aged about 45 years, Occ. Assistant
Teacher, R/o. Tri Hari Junk, Narkeshri
Layout, Ujjwal Nagarr, Khamla,
Nagpur- 440025.
3. Bharti Yogeshkumar Gaidhane,
Aged about 40 years, Occ. Assistant
Teacher, R/o. Plot No.101, Ora
Residency, Khangar Layout, Matoshri
Nagar, Wanadongri, Nagpur- 441110.
4. Sonali Ajay Shilare,
Aged about 45 years, Occ. Assistant
Teacher, R/o. Plot No. 322, Garoba
Maidan, Kapse Chowk, Old
Bagadganj, Bhanewadi, Nagpur.
5. Vidyawardhini Gyanpeeth Upper
Primary School, Through its
Headmaster, Having its address at
Post. Vimantal, Sonegaon, Dist.
Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:- 1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its secretary, School Education
& Sports Department, Mantrayalaya,
Mumbai- 440032.
2. Commissioner (Education),
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
35/140
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Dr. Annie Besant Road, Pune-411001.
3. The Director of Education (Primary),
Central Building, Dr. Annie Besant
Road, Pune - 411001.
4. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Balbharati Building,
Near NMC Garden, Dhantoli, Nagpur -
440012.
5. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
6. Chief Superintendent,
Pay & Provident Fund Unit (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Anand Parchure & Mr. Saurav Rajurkar, Advs. for the petitioners.
Mr. D.V.Chauhan, GP with Ms.S.S.Jachak, AGP for the respondents-State.
Mr.M.M.Sudame, Sr.Adv. a/b Mr.Sheikh Majid, Mr.Saransh Wasnik Advs.
for the respondents-Zilla Parishad Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NOS. 6332 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:- 1. Praful Vitthal Gaurkar,
Aged about 34 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Janata College Road, Tukdoji
Nagar Ward No.6, Ghugus,
Chandrapur-442505.
2. Pawan Dinanath Kakde,
Aged about 38 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. S/o Dinanath Kakde, Ward
No.02, At-Narsingi, POST-Bharsingi,
Tah. Narkhed, Nagpur-441305.
3. Meena Amit Pardhi,
Aged about 34 years, Occ. Service,
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
36/140
R/o. C/o. Amit Pardhi, Gram
Khairtola, pathari, Post Chilloud, Tah.
Lalbarra, Dist. Balaghat-481331
4. Ankush Gajananrao Barlawar,
Aged about 34 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. S/o Gajananrao Barlawar, Plot
No.30, Near Sai Mandir, Ayodhya
Nagar, Nagpur-440024.
5. Nilesh Premdas Rathod,
Aged about 34 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. S/o Premdas Rathod, Nandipur,
Moha Ijara, Yavatmal-445204.
6. Rohidas Ganesh Chavhan,
Aged about 37 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. S/o Ganesh Chavhan, At.
Tulshinagar, Po. Kali (Daulat Khan.),
Tah. Mahagaon, Yavatmal-445204.
7. Dipali Gajananrao Dewale,
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. W/o Gajananrao Dewale, House
No. 174, Ward No. 17, Bus Sthank
Road, Near UKO Bank, Mohpa,
Nagpur-441502.
8. Ashabai Kewalram Shende,
Aged about 40 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Main Road, Umari, Gondiya-
441702.
9. Rupali Vaibhav Ghonge,
Aged about 38 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. W/o Vaibhav Ghonge, Plot
No.33, Ward No.03, Borgaon
(Durkheda), Near Vitthal Rukmini
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
37/140
Mandir, Dhapewada Khurd. Nagpur-
441501.
10. Jitendra Gopalrao Thote,
Aged about 43 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. S/o Gopalrao Thote, Bharat
Mata, Ward No. 12, Petlibudhwar
Katol, Nagpur-441302.
11. Sachin Arun Gavale,
Aged about 34 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Bibi, Nagpur-441110.
12. Avinash Sudam Rathod,
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Mu. Tulshinagar, Post. Kali
Daulat Khan, Tah. Mahagaon,
Yavatmal-445204.
13. Neha Ganesh Dhawade,
Aged about 33 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No.74, Amravati Road,
Cityline Hospital, Samrat Ashok
Nagar, 8th Mail, Dhawalameti, Nagpur-
440023.
14. Gajanan Devidas Rathod,
Aged about 34years, Occ. Service,
R/o. S/o Devidas Rathod, Ward No. 3,
At. Anand Nagar, Po. Hiwara,
Yavatmal-445204.
15. Anil Shivram Rathod,
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. S/o Shriram Rathod, Mu.
Panhala, Po. Belora, Tah. Pusad,
Yavatmal-445215.
16. Shraddha Abhijeet Shinde,
Aged about 36 years, Occ. Service,
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
38/140
R/o. W/o Abhijeet Shinde, Plot
No.326, Ganeshpeth, Model Mill
Square, Mahal S.O., Nagpur-440032.
17. Gaurav Pundlik Jadhao,
Aged about 33 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. S/o. Punkdlik Jadhav, Ramnagar
(N.V.), Yavatmal-445002.
18. Akshay Sanjay Mande,
Aged about 31 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. S/o Sanjay Mande, Near
Sanskrutik Bhawan, Plot No. 32, Bank
Colony, Bhagwan Nagar, Nagpur-
440027.
19. Shailesh Vinod Motghare,
Aged about 36 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. S/o Vinod Motghare, Near Shiv
Mandir, Vishwas Nagar Gittikhadan,
VTC: Katol Road, Nagpur-440013.
20. Vidhya Vikas Uccha Prathmik
Shala, Through its Headmaster,
Having its address at Shiv Chatrapati
Nagar, Wathoda Layout, (Kharbi)
Nagpur.
21. Shri Om Taj Krupa Education Society,
Through its Secretary,
Having its address at Shiv Chatrapati
Nagar, Wathoda Layout, (Kharbi)
Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:- 1. State of Maharashtra,
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
39/140
Through its secretary, School Education
& Sports Department, Mantrayalaya,
Mumbai- 440032.
2. Commissioner (Education),
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Dr. Annie Besant Road, Pune-411001.
3. The Director of Education (Primary),
Central Building, Dr. Annie Besant
Road, Pune - 411001.
4. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Balbharati Building,
Near NMC Garden, Dhantoli, Nagpur -
440012.
5. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
6. Chief Superintendent,
Pay & Provident Fund Unit (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Anand Parchure & Mr. Saurav Rajurkar, Advs. for the petitioners.
Mr. D.V.Chauhan, GP with Ms.S.S.Jachak, AGP for the respondents-State.
Mr.M.M.Sudame, Sr.Adv. a/b Mr.Sheikh Majid, Mr.Saransh Wasnik Advs.
for the respondents-Zilla Parishad Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NOS. 6331 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:- 1. Manoj Purushottam Bodhe,
Aged about 38 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Jain Layout, Near HP Pump,
Ward No. 6, Wani, Yavatmal-445304.
2. Soni Somnath Pampattiwar,
Aged about 40 years, Occ. Service,
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
40/140
R/o. Mangalmurti Apartment,
Dashankarwadi, Chikhalgaon, Wani,
Yavatmal-445304.
3. Nikitesh Prabhakarao Patil,
Aged about 33 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. C/o. Prabhakar Patil, Near
Telipura Pewtha, Masakasath, Itwari,
Nagpur-440002.
4. Mangesh Keshavrao Ninave,
Aged about 33 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No. 62/63, Prajoti Cort,
Omkar Nagar, Nagpur-440024.
5. Sachin Ashok Wasnik,
Aged about 40 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Santaji Nagar, Ward No. 3, Kanan
Nagpur, Nagpur-441401.
6. Madhuri Mahadeorao Jadhav,
Aged about 50 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Shivarpan Apartment Narsala,
Nagpur-440023.
7. Swapnil Bhimrao Gaikwad,
Aged about 36 years, Occ. Service,
R/o.Zadkinhi, Water Tank, Kalamb,
Yavatmal, 445401.
8. Nishant Suresh Rathod,
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. 214, Near Government Hospital,
Adilabad Road Kinwat, Nanded
431805.
9. Sandeep Ganganna Ultawar,
Aged about 36 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. C/o. Ganganna Ultawar, Lohar
Gali, Kinwal, Nanded 431804
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
41/140
10. Atul Shankarrao Raut,
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Karnji, Ralegaon, Yavatmal
445402.
11. Rajkumar Narayan Urkude,
Aged about 44 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Ward No. 15, Rukhmini Vihar,
Hingna, Khapa, Nagpur 440034.
12. Swapna Uttam Narnaware,
Aged about 39 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. House 1435, Ward No. 73, Ram
Nagar, Pandharabodi, Nagpur 440033.
13. Dharati Sandip Upase,
Aged about 36 years, Occ. Service,
R/o.74, Trilokya Society, Nagpur
440023.
14. Priyanka Prakash Kalaskar,
Aged about 37 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. C/o. Nanda Sharad Milmile,
Gayatri School Road, Lokhande,
Nagpur-440034.
15. Sachin Vijayrao Pinnamwar,
Aged about 36 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Vitthal Rukhmai Ward, Ghatanji,
Pandurna Road, Yavatmal 445301.
16. Divyani Satish Wafare,
Aged about 27 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Satish Wafare, Model Mill Closed
Gate, Near Hanuman Mandir, Karnal
Bagh, Nagpur 440032.
17. Ravi Fakira Rathod,
Aged about 38 years, Occ. Service,
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
42/140
R/o. 112, Krushnanagar, Landmark
Maroti Mandir, Sawali Sadaba Road,
Arni 445106.
18. Neha Amit Gadhe,
Aged about 34 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. H.No.469, Radke Layout, Nagpur
(Urban, Nagpur 440016.
19. Mahesh Gopal Dharmshahare,
Aged about 34 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. N/h. 06, Maramjob, Gondiya-
441901.
20. Rakesh Arunrao Masurkar,
Aged about 34 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Near Kudrat Pan Mandir, Plot No.
4, Durga Nagar, Manewada Road,
VTC: Ayodhya Nagar, Nagpur 440024.
21. Ujjwala Shashank Morchapure,
Aged about 38 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. C/o. Rameshwar Morchapure,
House No. 77, Plot No. 57, Ghate
Layout, Hudkeshwar Road, Near
Hudkeshwar Hospital, Nagpur
440054.
22. Ashwin Bhaurao Madame,
Aged about 40 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. C/o. Bhaurao Madme, Ambedkar
Ward, Near Buddha Vihar at. PO.
Kardha, Bhandara 441924.
23. Minakshi Sandiprao Sarode,
Aged about 38 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. C/o Sandiprao Sarode, At-
Kohala, PO-Dhawlapur, Tah.-Katol,
Nagpur 441302.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
43/140
24. Kalpana Samir Umap,
Aged about 48 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. C/o. Samir Umap, Laxmanrao
Deshmuh Layout, Chandika, Ward
No.9, Galpura Sq., Tah. Katol, Nagpur
441302.
25. Swargiya Shravanji Watkar Uccha
Prathmik Shala, Through its
Headmaster, Hudkeshwar Road,
Nagpur.
26. Priyadarshini Prathamik Shala,
Through its Headmaster, Ramnagar,
Nagpur.
27. Gayatri Prathmik Shala, Through its
Headmaster, Gayatrinagar, Nagpur.
28. Jivandeep Shikshan Sanstha, Through
its Secretary, Mahal, Nagpur.
29. Bharat Education Society, Through its
Secretary, Mahal, Nagpur.
30. Nirmal Education Bahuuddeshiya
Sanstha, Through its Secretary,
Dattatreya Nagar, Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:- 1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary, School Education
& Sports Department, Mantrayalaya,
Mumbai- 440032.
2. Commissioner (Education),
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
44/140
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Dr. Annie Besant Road, Pune-411001.
3. The Director of Education (Primary),
Central Building, Dr. Annie Besant
Road, Pune - 411001.
4. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Balbharati Building,
Near NMC Garden, Dhantoli, Nagpur -
440012.
5. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
6. Chief Superintendent,
Pay & Provident Fund Unit (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Anand Parchure & Mr. Saurav Rajurkar, Advs. for the petitioners.
Mr. D.V.Chauhan, GP with Ms.S.S.Jachak, AGP for the respondents-State.
Mr.M.M.Sudame, Sr.Adv. a/b Mr.Sheikh Majid, Mr.Saransh Wasnik,
Mr.A.Sonar & Mr.U.Khobragade, Advs.for the respondents-Z.P.Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NOS. 6328 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:- 1. Naresh Sudhakar Telkapalliwar,
Aged about 34 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No.104, Wathoda Road,
Near Gajana School, Chaitaneshwar
Nagar, Nagpur 440008.
2. Pranjali Chandrakant Dokrimare,
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. 85 Shivaji Colony, Hudkeshwar
Road, Behind Nasare Hall, Nagpur-
440034.
3. Ruplai Zamal Ukey,
Aged about 34 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Jakir Hussen Ward, Gondiya
441911.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
45/140
4. Ideal Convent Hindi Primary School,
Through its Headmaster,
Kanhan, Parshivani, Nagpur.
5. Ideal Education Society, Through its
Secretary, Kanhan, Parshivani, Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:- 1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its secretary, School Education
& Sports Department, Mantrayalaya,
Mumbai- 440032.
2. Commissioner (Education),
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Dr. Annie Besant Road, Pune-411001.
3. The Director of Education (Primary),
Central Building, Dr. Annie Besant
Road, Pune - 411001.
4. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Balbharati Building,
Near NMC Garden, Dhantoli, Nagpur -
440012.
5. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
6. Chief Superintendent,
Pay & Provident Fund Unit (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Anand Parchure & Mr. Saurav Rajurkar, Advs. for the petitioners.
Mr. D.V.Chauhan, GP with Ms.S.S.Jachak, AGP for the respondents-State.
Mr.M.M.Sudame, Sr.Adv. a/b Mr.Sheikh Majid, Mr.Saransh Wasnik Advs.
for the respondents-Zilla Parishad Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
46/140
WRIT PETITION NOS. 7413 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:- 1. Rakesh Devidas Bodhe,
Aged about 37 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Kolgaon Road, Behind Police
Station, Ward No.5, Maregaon,
Yavatmal- 445303.
2. Chetna Sachin Kalbande,
Aged about 33 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No. 553-134, Jaytala Road,
Behind Rahi Sabhagruh, Hirnwaar
Layout, Nagpur- 440036.
3. Priyanka Mohan Tapre,
Aged about 40 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No.46, Manewada Road,
Mahalaxmi Nagar, Ayodhya Nagar,
Nagpur- 440024.
4. Abhishek Sureshrao Godbole,
Aged about 40 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Ward No.2, Post. Sawargaon,
Narkhed, Dist. Nagpur- 441306.
5. Sachin Ambadas Thakare,
Aged about 36 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Bailampur, Mukutban, Yavatmal,
Maharashtra- 445304.
6. Sharaddha Pravin Gadge,
Aged about 36 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Near Buddha Vihal, Shivaji
Nagar, Hanuman Chowk, Mahal,
Nagpur- 440032.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:- 1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its secretary, School Education
& Sports Department, Mantrayalaya,
Mumbai- 440032.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
47/140
2. Commissioner (Education),
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Dr. Annie Besant Road, Pune-411001.
3. The Director of Education (Primary),
Central Building, Dr. Annie Besant
Road, Pune - 411001.
4. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Balbharati Building,
Near NMC Garden, Dhantoli, Nagpur -
440012.
5. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
6. Chief Superintendent,
Pay & Provident Fund Unit (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
7. Bhupendra Prathmik Shala, Through its
Headmaster, Saubhagya Nagar,
Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Anand Parchure & Mr. Saurav Rajurkar, Advs. for the petitioners.
Mr. D.V.Chauhan, GP with Ms.S.S.Jachak, AGP for the respondents-State.
Mr.M.M.Sudame, Sr.Adv. a/b Mr.Sheikh Majid, Mr.Saransh Wasnik Advs.
for the respondents-Zilla Parishad Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NOS. 6384 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:- 1. Nargis Bano,
Aged about 44 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. C 7 Rathor Layout, Anant Nagar,
Katol Road, Near Noori Masjid,
Nagpur-440013.
2. Mohammad Shahid Nisar Ali,
Aged about 39 years, Occ. Service,
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
48/140
R/o. House No. 81/A, Behind Namak
Factory, Ganjakhet, Mahatma Fule
Bazar, Nagpur-440018.
3. Salim Ahmad Sayeed Ansari, Aged
about 47 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Near Lal School, C.A. Road,
Lodhipura, Nagpur-440018 .
4. Shahin Anjum Shareef Ahmad,
Aged about 49 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. House No.871, Patwari House,
Near Chuna Masjid, Panna Lal Chawl,
Timki, Mahatma Fule Bazar, Nagpur-
440018.
5. Qamar Urdu Primary School, Through
its Headmaster, Mominpura, Nagpur.
6. Faridiya Urdu Upper Primary School,
Through its Headmaster, Nagpur.
7. Qamar Education Society, Through its
Secretary, Sheikh Bari Chowk, Nal
Sahab Road, Hansapuri, Nagpur.
8. Shamz Rural Development Society,
Through its Secretary, Timki Road,
Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:- 1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its secretary, School Education
& Sports Department, Mantrayalaya,
Mumbai- 440032.
2. Commissioner (Education),
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Dr. Annie Besant Road, Pune-411001.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
49/140
3. The Director of Education (Primary),
Central Building, Dr. Annie Besant
Road, Pune - 411001.
4. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Balbharati Building,
Near NMC Garden, Dhantoli, Nagpur -
440012.
5. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
6. Chief Superintendent,
Pay & Provident Fund Unit (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Anand Parchure & Mr. Saurav Rajurkar, Advs. for the petitioners.
Mr. D.V.Chauhan, GP with Ms.S.S.Jachak, AGP for the respondents-State.
Mr.M.M.Sudame, Sr.Adv. a/b Mr.Sheikh Majid, Mr.Saransh Wasnik Advs.
for the respondents-Zilla Parishad Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NOS. 7381 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:- 1. Harish Pullayyaji Kadwalwar,
Aged about 39 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No.18, Mire Layout,
Gurudeo Nagar, Nagpur- 440009.
2. Yogita Jaydeo Upathale,
Aged about 41 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No. 135, Thawkarwadi,
Pardi, Bhandewadi, Nagpur.
3. Kalpana Dinesh Panchal,
Aged about 41 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No.103, Sahare Layout, Near
Shiv Mandir, New Ganesh Nagar
Kharbi, Mhaliginagar, Nagpur-440034.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
50/140
4. Supriya Harshal Motghare,
Aged about 34 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No.24, Jay Vastra Bhandar,
Opp. N.I.T. Complex, Rani Durgawati
Chowk, Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Nagpur-
440017.
5. Priti Swapnil Titarmare,
Aged about 34 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No.13-14, Near Shitla Mata
Mandir, New Diamond Nagar, Kharbi
Road, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur-
440009.
6. Vidya Vijay Uccha Prathmik Shala,
Through its Headmaster, Ambenagar,
Pardi, Nagpur.
7. Student Welfare Education Society,
Through its Secretary, Ambe Nagar,
Pardi, Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:- 1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its secretary, School Education
& Sports Department, Mantrayalaya,
Mumbai- 440032.
2. Commissioner (Education),
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Dr. Annie Besant Road, Pune-411001.
3. The Director of Education (Primary),
Central Building, Dr. Annie Besant
Road, Pune - 411001.
4. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Balbharati Building,
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
51/140
Near NMC Garden, Dhantoli, Nagpur -
440012.
5. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
6. Chief Superintendent,
Pay & Provident Fund Unit (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Anand Parchure & Mr. Saurav Rajurkar, Advs. for the petitioners.
Mr. D.V.Chauhan, GP with Ms.S.S.Jachak, AGP for the respondents-State.
Mr.M.M.Sudame, Sr.Adv. a/b Mr.Sheikh Majid, Mr.Saransh Wasnik Advs.
for the respondents-Zilla Parishad Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NOS. 6383 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:- 1. Rakhi Nitin Boinwar,
Aged about 42 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Behind Sarvashree Vidyalaya,
Plot No.119, Kirti Nagar, VTC: Mhalgi
Nagar, Nagpur 440034.
2. Hitesh Ashokrao Potle,
Aged about 40 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No.52, Mire Layout, New
Anandanwan Road, Behind Datta
Mandir, Nagpur.
3. Pallavee Devendra Sahare,
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Plot No.21, Darshan Colony,
Near KDK College, Nagpur 440009.
4. Atul Annaji Gowardipe,
Aged about 41 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. S/o Annaji Gowardipe, At.
Taroda, Po. Punvat, Yavatmal 445304.
5. Naina Ashish Buchche,
Aged about 34 years, Occ. Service,
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
52/140
R/o. House No.2080/84, Ward No.15,
Dhangarpura, VTC: Hingna, Nagpur
441110.
6. Chetan Shekharrao Mahatme,
Aged about 37 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Near Choudhari Market, 409,
Bazar Pada, Wathoda, Amravti-
444802.
7. Radheshyam Subhash Jadhav,
Aged about 32 years, Occ. Service,
R/o.Vasantpur, Yavatmal, Maharashtra
-445215.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:- 1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its secretary, School Education
& Sports Department, Mantrayalaya,
Mumbai- 440032.
2. Commissioner (Education),
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Dr. Annie Besant Road, Pune-411001.
3. The Director of Education (Primary),
Central Building, Dr. Annie Besant
Road, Pune - 411001.
4. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Balbharati Building,
Near NMC Garden, Dhantoli, Nagpur -
440012.
5. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
6. Chief Superintendent,
Pay & Provident Fund Unit (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
7. Pitale Shastri Prathmik Shala, Through
its Headmaster, Lakshminagar, Nagpur.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
53/140
8. Tilak Prathmik Shala, Through its
Headmaster, Dhantoli, Nagpur.
9. Shreyas Uccha Prathmik Vidyalaya,
Through its Headmaster, Vardhman
Nagar, Nagpur.
10. Nalanda Prathmik Shala, Through its
Headmaster, Gavalipura, Ramnagar,
Kamptee.
11. Shrimati Saraswatibai Nistane
Prathmik Vidyalaya, Through its
Headmaster, Takghat, Tah. Hingna,
Nagpur.
12. Lonkaran Rathi Primary School,
Through its Headmaster, Kondhali,
Dist. Nagpur.
13. Shriram Prathmik Shala, Through its
Headmaster, Waitola, Ramtek Dist.
Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Anand Parchure & Mr. Saurav Rajurkar, Advs. for the petitioners.
Mr. D.V.Chauhan, GP with Ms.S.S.Jachak, AGP for the respondents-State.
Mr.M.M.Sudame, Sr.Adv. a/b Mr.Sheikh Majid, Mr.Saransh Wasnik Advs.
for the respondents-Zilla Parishad Nagpur.
Mr.N.S.Trivedi, Adv.for the respondent No.11.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NOS. 6038 OF 2025
PETITIONERS: 1. Ku. Archana Shamrao Baraskar, aged
47 years, occ. Service, r/o plot no.
99/100, Baba Farid Nagar, Tisari Galli,
Mankapur, Nagpur 440030.
2. Ku. Vaishali Mahadeo Choudhari aged
35 years, occ. Service, r/o c/o Vanita
Choudhari, 3rd floor, Rakhunde
Apartment, Opp. Kishor Kumeriya's
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
54/140
office, Ramna Maroti, Nandanwan
Nagpur 440 024.
3. Ku. Seema Babarao Salwatkar, aged
34 years, occ. Service, r/o c/o
Shankarrao Ghugal, near Gram
Panchayat Ward No. 2, Bhiwapur
441 201.
4. Ku. Dhaneshwari Pralhad Karemore,
(w/o Sunil Bawankule) aged 28 yea
occ. Service, r/o MU Post Mamegapm
Bazar. <amegapm. Bjamdara 441924.
5. Amit Dhanraj Girhepunje aged 37
years Sahakar Nagar, Canal road,
Ravindranath Thaigor Ward, Bhandara
441904.
6. Suraj Shrikrushna Tajne aged 32
years, occ. Service, r/o Ward No.1,
Khailri Dhalgaon Savner 441 112.
7. Ku. Nikhat Aarif Khan w/o Arif Khan
aged 38 years, 1105 Baba Tajbag, near
NIT Market, Ashirwad Nagar Nagpur
440024.
8. Ku. Shahanur Nisha Mohd. Murtuza
Sheikh, aged 24 years, occ. Service,
r/o plot no. 18, Gousiya colony, Ring
Road, Ashirvad Nagar, Nagpur
440024.
9. Ku. Farhin Falgun Gedam, aged 34
years, occ. Service, r/o Ward No. 5,
near Video Square, Butibori, Tahsil
and district Nagpur 441 108.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
55/140
10. Ku. Shilpa Jagdish Janbandhu w/o
Nagesh Raypure aged 38 years, M PO
Mokhala, Chandrapur 441 225.
11. Liladhar Ramlal Gaygwal aged 42
years, occ. Service, r/o Sitalamata
Parisar at Sitaswangi, Taluka Tumsar,
Chikhali 441 907.
12. Jaihind Vidyalaya Uccha Prathmik
School, Gulshan Nagar, Nagpur thro'
Principal.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Department of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
2. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
3. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur.
4. The Chief Superintendent, P & PF Unit
(Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R.S.Parsodkar & Mr.P.S.Parsodkar, Advs. for the petitioners.
Mr. D.V.Chauhan, GP with Ms.S.S.Jachak, AGP for the respondents-State.
Mr.M.M.Sudame, Sr.Adv. a/b Mr.Saransh Wasnik Advs.
for the respondents-Zilla Parishad Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NOS. 6037 OF 2025
PETITIONERS: 1. Bharti Bante, aged 43 years, occ.
Assistant Teacher, r/o Plot no. 13,
Bhupesh Nagar, Gorewada, Nagpur.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
56/140
2. Arti A. Vinchurkar, aged 43 years, occ.
Assistant Teacher, r/o flat по. L-403,
NIT Complex, Ayurvedic layout,
Nagpur.
3. Priti S. Pusadkar, aged 34 years, occ.
Assistant Teacher, r/o Dhunkar layout,
Wardha,
4. Suvarna R. Sormare, aged 33 years,
occ. Assistant Teacher, r/o Ward No.1,
Gumthi road, Gumthi, Nagpur.
5. Rahul M. Shende, aged 35 years, occ.
Assistant Teacher,r/o Plot No.34.
Sarvashri Nagar, Dighori,Nagpur.
6. Anita Sunil Nirmal, aged 37 years,
occ. Assistant Teacher, r/o 56,
Hudkeshwar road, Radha Krishna
Nagar, Nagpur.
7. Veena D. Bante, aged 41 years, occ.
Assistant Teacher, r/o 5/b, Indradeep
Gurudev Nagar, Nagpur.
8. Vijayalaxmi D. Mahulkar, aged 39
years, occ. Assistant Teacher, r/o
Shivsunder Nagar, Dighori, Nagpur.
9. Shri Sant Eknath Upper Primary
School, Shiv Sundar Nagar, Dighori,
Nagpur, through its Headmaster.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Department of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
57/140
2. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
3. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur.
4. The Chief Superintendent, P & PF Unit
(Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R.S.Parsodkar & Mr.P.S.Parsodkar, Advs. for the petitioners.
Mr. D.V.Chauhan, GP with Ms.S.S.Jachak, AGP for the respondents-State.
Mr.M.M.Sudame, Sr.Adv. a/b Mr.Saransh Wasnik Advs.
for the respondents-Zilla Parishad Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NOS. 6039 OF 2025
PETITIONERS: 1. Ku. Molina Dharamdas Bhasme, aged
42 years, occ. Service, r/o c/o Molina
Manoj Dhoke Prabhag no. 09 near
Buddha Vihar, Juni Vasti, Butibori,
Nagpur 44108.
2. Ku. Nita Pralhad Karemore, aged 33
Years, r/o c/o Vikas Vanjari, Gandhi
Ward, main road, MU.PO.Kondha
Taluka Pauni, Bhandara 441 908.
3. Ku. Rukhsar Parvin Mohd. Murtuja
Sheikh, aged 29 years, d/o Murtuja
Sheikh, Besa Pavar Jawal, 18, Cosiya
colony, Ring Road, Besa Nagpur 440
034.
4. Ku.Sarika Madhukarrao Kamdi, w/o
Manoj Zade, aged 40 Years, r/o plot
no.1069, near Thakre School,,
Ashirvad Nagar, Nagpur 440 024.
5. Shri Mohammad Mobin, Mohammad
Mustakin aged 40 Years, r/o Besa
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
58/140
Pavar HO ke pas 18, Gausiya colony,
Ring Road, Besa, Nagpur 440 034.
6. Ku.Uma Bhanudas Vaidya, now Uma
Naresh Rakshak w/o Naresh Rakshak
aged 39 years, Santaji Nagar, Kanhan,
Nagpur 441 401.
7. Ku.Manisha Hemraj Bawankude, aged
35 years, Kuhi road, near Hanuman
Mandir Ward No.2, Kuhi, Salewada
Sakoli, Bhandara 441 802.
8. Ku.Archana Vinod Wanjari, aged 45
years, H.No. 81/1, Kachore layout,
Bori, Nagpur 441 108.
9. Ku. Archana Ramesh Sahare, aged 42
years, near Indora Square, H.No. 312,
Gond Mohalla Jaripatka road, Nagpur
440 004.
10. Khemchand Naresh Hedaoo, aged 48
years, r/o 54, Timki Road, Khadkadi
Mhalla, behind Hanuman Mandir
Nagpur 440 018.
11. Ku. Madhuri Purushottam Pawade,
aged 31 Years, Chilaladegaon,
Yavatmal Chilal, Yavatmal 445 304.
12. Ku. Sheetal Bhikshuk Girhepunje aged
33 years, (w/o Mahesh Bhure,
Abhyankar Ward, Main Road, Akot,
Bhandara 441 908.
13. Ku. Lalita Arjunrao Mandhre (w/o
Kisana Parse, aged 32 Years, r/o Ward
No. 6, Butibori, Bori, Nagpur 4411 08.
14. Ku. Sonali Namdeorao Thavkar, aged
37 years, r/o Ward No. 4 at Lakhani,
Bhandara-441804.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
59/140
15. Badu Chudaman Patil, aged 50 years,
r/o near NIT Ground, Plot no. 157,
Laghuvetan Colony, Kamptee road,
Nagpur.
16. Ku.Harsha Shankarrao Wasade (now
Smt.Harsha Avinadh Dhobade, aged
36 years, R/o. Sayaki-Saiki, Nagpur
441 203.
17. Ku.Manjusha Bapurao Wararkar aged
36 years, c/o Roshan Nilkanth
Gohane, plot no. RH 20, Flat No. 302,
Imperial Night, Butibori Bori, Nagpur
441 108.
18. Ku.Smita Tarachand Ambade, aged 50
years, 620, Model Town, Indora
Jaripatka, Nagpur 440 014.
19. Ku.Neha Surendrakumar Saluja (now
Neha w/o Vijay Arora), aged 38 years,
r/o Shivnagar, Ward No.4, Tarsa road,
Kanhan 441 401, District Nagpur.
20. S.K.B. Uccha Prathmik Vidya Mandir,
Yadav Nagar, Nagpur, through its
Headmaster.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Department of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
2. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
3. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur.
4. The Chief Superintendent, P & PF Unit
(Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
60/140
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R.S.Parsodkar & Mr.P.S.Parsodkar, Advs. for the petitioners.
Mr. D.V.Chauhan, GP with Ms.S.S.Jachak, AGP for the respondents-State.
Mr.M.M.Sudame, Sr.Adv. a/b Mr.Saransh Wasnik Advs.
for the respondents-Zilla Parishad Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NOS. 6040 OF 2025
PETITIONERS: 1. Ku.Jyoti Wamanrao Rahandgale, aged
38 Years, occ. Service, r/o near
Ganesh Kirana Dukan Plot no. 17,
Bhende layout, Swawalambi Nagar,
Ranapratap Nagar, Nagpur-440 022.
2. Ku.Rohini Dharmaraj Ghodmare, aged
36 Years, occ. Service, r/o Chandani
Chowk, Silewada, Saoner, Nagpur 441
009.
3. Ku. Nititasha Namdeo Patel, aged 43
Years, occ. Service, r/o Qr. No. 13,
Laghuvetan Colony, Kamptee road,
Jaripatka, Nagpur 440 014.
4. Vinod Mansaraj Gajbhe, aged 38
Years, occ. Service, r/o at Post Netaji
Ward, Chimur, Chandrapur 442903.
5. Ku.Punam Kisanlalji Rajak (w/o
Liladhar Gaygwal) aged 29 years, Occ:
Service, R/o. MU post Sitasaongi
Taluka Tumsar, Gorewahi, Bhanddara
441 907.
6. Sailesh Babulal Gajbhiye, aged 38
Years, occ. Service, r/o plot no. 18,
Kalamna road, near Mothi Vithal,
Gulshan Nagar, Wanjari layout,
Uppalwadi 440 026.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
61/140
7. Ku.Sujata Ishwar Dandekar, aged 31
Years, occ. Service r/o Kuhi road, near
ZP School, Dodma 441 202.
8. Ku.Tausif Ahmed Vakil Ahmad Sheikh
aged 24 Years, occ. Service, r/o plot
no.200, Tajabad Ring Road, Near
Suretech Hospital, 440 024.
9. Ruksana M. Alam Ansari, aged 29
Years, occ. Service, r/o Ward No.2,
Juni Vasti Bori, Nagpur 441 008.
10. Swami Vivekanand Uccha Prathmik
School, Butibori, Nagpur, through its
Headmaster
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Department of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
2. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
3. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur.
4. The Chief Superintendent, P & PF Unit
(Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R.S.Parsodkar & Mr.P.S.Parsodkar, Advs. for the petitioners.
Mr. D.V.Chauhan, GP with Ms.S.S.Jachak, AGP for the respondents-State.
Mr.M.M.Sudame, Sr.Adv. a/b Mr.Saransh Wasnik Advs.
for the respondents-Zilla Parishad Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NOS. 6475 OF 2025
PETITIONERS: 1. Manohar Shivaji Ambure, aged 36
years, occ. Assistant teacher, r/o Plot
No. 56, Walmiki Nagar, Shankar
Nagar, Nagpur.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
62/140
2. Ms.Rajni Ashok Dhamgaye, aged 35
years, occ. Assistant Teacher, r/o Plot
no.5, Sai Nagara, Dabha, Nagpur.
3. Ms.Dhanashri Vijayrao Tidke, aged
about 35 years, occ. Assistant Teacher,
r/o ward No.2 Mukkam and Post
Upparwahi, Tq. Kalmeshwar, District
Nagpur.
4. Roshan Pradip Rathod, aged about 35
years, occ. Assistant Teacher, r/o
Mukkam Tulshinagar, Post Daulat
Khan, Tq. Mahagaon, District
Yavatmal.
5. Ritesh Shankar Dhawale, aged 35
years, occ. Assistant teacher, r/o
surbhi solony, Bhandravati, District
Chandrapur.
6. Ms. Dhanashri Dhananjay Indurkar
Ku.Sima Narayan Mupidwar, aged 43
years, occ. Sepoy, r/o plot no.
Swawalambi Nagar, 17, near
Hanuman temple, Pratap Nagar,
Nagpur.
7. Ms. Harshada Dinesh Sabnis, aged 44
years, occ. Junior Clerk, r/o bharat
Nagar, Nagpur.
8. Lokmanya Convent Marathi Uccha
Prathmik Shala, Gandhi Nagar,
Nagpur through its Headmaster.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Department of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
63/140
2. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
3. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur.
4. The Chief Superintendent, P & PF Unit
(Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R.S.Parsodkar & Mr.P.S.Parsodkar, Advs. for the petitioners.
Mr. D.V.Chauhan, GP with Ms.S.S.Jachak, AGP for the respondents-State.
Mr.M.M.Sudame, Sr.Adv. a/b Mr.Saransh Wasnik Advs.
for the respondents-Zilla Parishad Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NOS. 6477 OF 2025
PETITIONERS: 1. Mayur Ashokrao Khorgade, aged 35
years, occ. Assistant Teacher, r/o plot
no. 163, Adhyapak Nagar, Manewada
Ring road, Besa, Nagpur.
2. Ms. Ashwini Sharad Urkude, aged 36
years, occ. Assistant teacher, r/o plot
no. 253, Hurkeshwar road, Ayodhya
Nagar, Nagpur.
3. Smt. Priya Roshan Kadu, (Ku.Priya
Prabhakar Daf), aged 36 years, occ.
Assistant Teacher r/o plot no. 100,
Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur.
4. Vilas Suryaji Rao Kothare, aged 36
years, occ. Asstt. Teacher, r/o resident
and post Hathrad, Tq. Mukhed,
Hathrad Nanded.
5. Udesh Bhaurao Jadhav, aged 34 years,
occ. Asstt. Teacher, r/o Vasant Nagar,
at Post Wadgaon Gadwe, Yavatmal.
6. Ms. Jyotsna Ajay Indurkar, aged 47
years, occ. Sepoy, r/o Plot No. 70, near
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
64/140
Hanuman Mandir, Swawalambi, Nagar
Nagpur.
7. Ms. Mamta Atish Borkar, aged 43
years, occ. Junior Clerk, r/o 42,
Sahakar Layout, Isasani Nagpur.
8. Manjusha Convent Marathi Uccha
Prathmik Shala, Takia (Timki), Nagpur
through its Headmaster.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Department of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
2. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
3. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur.
4. The Chief Superintendent, P & PF Unit
(Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R.S.Parsodkar & Mr.P.S.Parsodkar, Advs. for the petitioners.
Mr. D.V.Chauhan, GP with Ms.S.S.Jachak, AGP for the respondents-State.
Mr.M.M.Sudame, Sr.Adv. a/b Mr.Saransh Wasnik Advs.
for the respondents-Zilla Parishad Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NOS. 5855 OF 2025
PETITIONERS: 1. Praful Manohar Kale, aged 34 years,
Occ.-Service,
2. Ku.Mital Pradiprao Dhote, aged 33
years, occ. Service,
3. Ku.Priyanka Sheshrao Bobde, aged 35
years, occ. Service,
All the petitioners are R/o. C/o. Praful
Manohar Kale, R/o. 531, New
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
65/140
Subhedar Layout, Near Hanuman
Mandir, Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: 1. Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur.
2. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur.
4. Navyug Prathamik Shala, Rajabaksha,
Medical Chowk, Nagpur through its
Headmaster.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P. N. Shende, Adv. for the petitioners.
Mr. D.V.Chauhan, GP with Ms.S.S.Jachak, AGP for the respondents-State.
Mr.M.M.Sudame, Sr.Adv. a/b Mr.Saransh Wasnik Advs.
for the respondents-Zilla Parishad Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NOS. 7043 OF 2025
PETITIONER: Miss. Madiha Nusrat Aqueelur
Rahman (Mrs.Madiha Nusrat W/o
Mohamamad Shoeb Qureshi), aged
about 34 years, Occ.-Service, R/o
R.K.S. Public School, Sant Gajanan
Nagar, Nara Road, Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Department of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032.
2. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
3. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur.
4. The Chief Superintendent, Pay & PF
Unit (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
66/140
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.R.Narnaware, Adv. for the petitioner.
Mr. D.V.Chauhan, GP with Ms.S.S.Jachak, AGP for the respondents-State.
Mr.M.M.Sudame, Sr.Adv. a/b Mr.Saransh Wasnik Advs.
for the respondents-Zilla Parishad Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR &
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
CLOSED ON : 6TH APRIL, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 21ST APRIL, 2026
JUDGMENT (Per : Smt. M. S. Jawalkar, J.)
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Above all the petitions are filed by the petitioners for
seeking direction to the respondents to release their salary, which was
stopped since March, 2025 without any notice or without there being
any fault on their part. At the time of issuance of notice in petitions,
as there was no show cause notice and salary was stopped since
March, 2025, considering this aspect and also considering the fact
that the respondents are exacting the duties from the petitioners as a
teacher, the schools are being run, even election duties, census duties
are directed to be carried out by these employee-teachers, by way of
interim relief, the respondents were directed to release their salary.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
67/140
4. It appears that there was no reply filed till February, 2026,
except in one of the matters. However, it appears that the Hon’ble
Apex Court recorded that since pleadings have been completed, this
Court was requested to decide Writ Petition No.5647 of 2025 along
with all other similarly placed writ petitions, which are stated to be
86 in numbers finally one way or the other within a period of four
weeks. It appears that factually incorrect statement was made that
pleadings have been completed. In fact in Writ Petition No.5647 of
2025, respondent No.1 filed its reply on 11/02/2026 and respondent
No.2 filed its reply on 23/03/2026 after disposing of the Special
Leave Petition. As such, in that petition also pleadings were not
complete. In fact, in most of the matters pleadings were not complete
and after passing of order by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the respondents
itself filed their reply. Prior to that, there was no reply nor any
application for modification of order or challenging the interim order.
In spite of the order of Hon’ble Apex Court, the time was granted to
the respondents to complete their pleadings and matters are taken up
in group for decision.
5. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.7441 of 2025 are the
teachers as well as headmasters of the respective schools and
management of the respective institution. Their names, respective
designation, date of appointments, date of approvals, date of
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
68/140
permanent appointments on grant-in-aid basis, date of approval to
permanent appointments were mentioned in Annexure-1 (Pg.-35).
From this chart, it can be seen that mostly their appointments are of
the years 2013 and 2014, whereas appointments of non-teaching staff
is of the year 2010. Their approval on no grant basis are of the years
2013 and 2014. Their appointments on grant basis appears to be of
the years 2015, 2016 and 2017. The date of approval to most of the
permanent appointments on grant basis are also of the years 2015
and 2016. In respect of Swati Vijay Bharadwaj (Clerk) and Sunil
Panjabrao Pawar (Peon), they were appointed on grant basis on
01/07/2010 and their approval on grant basis issued on 16/09/2013.
Their appointment and approval orders are annexed with the petition.
5.1. It is contention of the petitioners that on 07/11/2012, the
respondent No.1 issued GR, thereby framing a scheme for disbursal of
salary and allowances to teaching and non-teaching staff working in
zilla parishad schools, municipal and municipality schools and aided/
partially aided posts of private primary, secondary and higher
secondary schools in Maharashtra. Vide this scheme, the details of the
teaching and non-teaching staff are fed into the computer system and
the Shalarth ID gets assigned to the teaching and non-teaching staff.
Specifically in terms of procedure prescribed under this GR, the
headmasters of appointing schools were responsible only for data
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
69/140
entry of their employees’ information. The responsibility for (i)
verification and certification of submitted information and (ii)
generating and allocating Shalarth ID to the employees lay exclusively
with the Education Officer (Primary/Secondary) of that district.
Pursuant to the scheme provided in the GR dated 07/11/2012, the
details of the petitioners were uploaded on the Shalart Portal. Except
for uploading these details, the school management had no role to
play in issuance of Shalarth ID and there is no control of school
whatsoever when the details are submitted. Accordingly, the
Authorities have duly verified the proposal submitted to the Shalarth
Portal and granted Shalarth ID.
5.2. On 18/11/2016, the respondent No.2-Commissioner
(Education), Maharashtra State issued a letter conferring authority
for granting Shalarth ID on the respondent No.3 i.e. the Director of
Education (Primary). However, considering the large backlog of
verification and granting of Shalarth ID by the respondent No.3, the
respondent No.1 vide GR dated 28/02/2018 constituted a Special
Action Committee for granting Shalarth ID to its employees and the
duty to allow Shalarth ID was conferred on different authorities. The
petitioner Nos.1 to 20 who were legally appointed and satisfied the
eligibility requirements, they were receiving regular salary till
February, 2025, after which the respondents suddenly stopped their
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
70/140
salary grants without any notice to the petitioners or any order or
without there being any fault on their part. It appears that the
respondents noticed certain irregularities in the appointment of
teaching and non-teaching staff in some of the schools in which
Shalarth ID were wrongly issued and salary was released. In view
thereof, respondent No.1-State of Maharashtra has constituted a
Special Investigation Team, which is investigating the above
mentioned irregularities. On 21/04/2025, the respondent No.5-
Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur issued a
communication to some of the headmasters of private aided schools
seeking verification on 22 points vis-a-vis employees who received
their Shalarth ID between 31/03/2019 and 31/03/2025. On perusal
of this communication, there is no indication about consequences of
non-furnishing of information nor any allegation of fraud or
misrepresentation. The petitioner Nos.21 and 22 i.e. schools received
another letter from the respondent No.5 asking it to submit salary
payment statement prepared on the Shalarth Portal to its office by
03/05/2025. On 13/05/2025, the schools were directed to submit the
documents by 15/05/2025. After five months of stopping salary, the
petitioners received a purported show cause notice from the
respondent No.4-Deputy Director of Education levelling unscrupulous
and omnibus allegations. Under the pretext of investigating the
alleged irregularities, the petitioners’ salary has been withheld
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
71/140
without assigning any reason and without issuing any order. The said
undated notice (signed on 04/08/2025) received by the petitioners, a
response of petitioner No.1 dated 20/08/2025 to the respondent No.4
is annexed with the petition at Annexure-X. Identical reply is filed by
all the petitioners. On 04/09/2025, the respondent No.4 issued
communication to all the petitioners to appear before the Enquiry
Committee along with original documents on 24/09/2025. However,
since certain documents were not available with the petitioners, they
sought for time to place it before the Committee. Pertinently, after the
said notice dated 04/09/2025, the petitioners have not received any
communication from the respondent No.4. Despite waiting for seven
months without any information about completion of investigation,
without any salary, the petitioners were discharging their duties.
There is no order for stoppage of salary supplied to the petitioners. In
this background, they filed present petition.
5.3. It is contention of the petitioners that the action of the
respondents in withholding salary is arbitrary, illegal and
unreasonable. It amounts to punish the petitioners for no fault on
their part. Being arbitrary, the impugned action is violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India. It is further contention that petitioner
Nos.1 to 20 are duly qualified and appointed after following the due
procedure of law and only after they met the eligibility criteria, they
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
72/140
were granted approval orders by the respondent No.5 and Shalarth
IDs were given to them, after due verification of their information.
The petitioners had no role to play in issuance of Shalarth IDs and
they are discharging their duties continuously. Thus, the action of
denying salary to the petitioners is arbitrary and amounts to
colourable exercise of power. The petitioners have no role insofar as
allotment of Shalarth ID, except of supplying of information to the
respondents, who are then responsible for verification of the
information and allotment of Shalarth ID. Therefore, the respondents’
action of stoppage of salary to the petitioners for their own
shortcomings is completely unwarranted and bad-in-law.
5.4 The Shalarth Portal being a payment system devised by the
respondents, does not create any new rights and/or duties on any
employee of the private aided school. That being the case, since the
petitioners have been duly granted approval by the respondents, it is
unjust and arbitrary on their part to deny the petitioners their rightful
entitlement because of purported irregularities in the payment
system. It is submitted that Shalarth ID order was never supplied to
the petitioners and therefore, the respondents’ insistence on directing
the petitioners to supply them a copy of the Shalarth ID order is
completely misplaced and antithetical to the procedure prescribed in
the GR. There is no power to unilaterally review or revise their
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
73/140
approvals. In denying the salary to the petitioners, the respondents
are attempting to review their own approval orders.
5.5. The petitioners relied on the judgment in Writ Petition
No.3057 of 2017 (Nilesh Subhash Jawanjal and others v. State of
Maharashtra and others), decided on 14/09/2017, in support of his
contention that the Authority undertaking the review of approval
orders shall keep in mind the service rendered by the concerned
teaching and non-teaching employees and the effect of cancellation of
approval on him and his dependents. This Court directed that the
approval ought to have been cancelled only in compelling
circumstances and that orders of cancellation of approval if passed,
shall not be given effect for a period of four weeks, after its service on
the concerned employee. This view was taken by this Court
considering the plight of the employees of private schools whose
approvals are sought to be reviewed by the Education Authorities
after the employee has rendered considerable length of service and
only on technical procedural lacunae and for which the employee
cannot be faulted. This action of withholding the salary seriously
prejudice the fundamental right of the petitioners to live a dignified
life as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This
action of respondents also amounts to Begar under Article 23 of the
Constitution of India. In purported show cause notice, which fails to
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
74/140
specify the consequential action befalling on the petitioners, there is
no whisper on the stoppage of salary grants to the petitioners. The
petitioner Nos.1 to 20 have been continuously receiving their salary
through Shalarth Portal until February, 2025 without any objection.
Thus, this unilateral action of stoppage of salary without there being
any order passed is illegal. On this ground, the petitioners seek
direction to the respondents to release their withheld salary and to
continue to release the same.
5.6. In Writ Petition No.5633/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 6 are
employees of the Petitioner No. 7 School, whereas Petitioner No. 8 is
the School Management. The Petitioner Nos.1 to 6 were appointed in
the Petitioner No.7 School on the posts of Assistant Teacher between
years 2012 and 2016, and their appointments were duly approved by
the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they
have duly submitted their online proposals for the approval of
Shalarth IDs however, their Shalarth Approval Orders were never
issued by the Respondent Authorities to the Petitioners online draft
proposals annexed with the petition.
5.7. In Writ Petition No.5464/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 31
are employees of the Respondent No.7 to 27 School and Management,
wherein Petitioner No. 20 is working on the post of Peon and the rest
of the Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
75/140
Nos. 1 to 31 were appointed in the respondent No.7 to 27 School on
their respective posts between years 2012 and 2017, and their
appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is
submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft
proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs however, their Shalarth
Approval Orders were never issued by the Respondent Authorities to
the Petitioners.
5.8. In Writ Petition No. 7393/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 4
are employees of the Respondent No.7 to 10 School and Management,
wherein Petitioner No. 3 is working on the post of Shikshan Sevak
and the rest of the Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The
Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 were appointed in the respondent No. 7 to 10
School on their respective posts between years 2013 and 2015, and
their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent
Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly
submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs
however, their Shalarth Approval Orders were never issued by the
Respondent Authorities to the Petitioners.
5.9. In Writ Petition No. 5866/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 4
are employees of the Respondent No.8 School and Respondent No. 7
is the Management, wherein Petitioner No.4 is a Junior Clerk and
Petitioner No. 1 to 3 are working on the post of Assistant Teacher.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
76/140
Further, Petitioner No. 5 is erstwhile employee of Respondent No. 8
and absorbed by Respondent No. 10 School and Respondent No. 9
Management. The Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 were appointed in the
respondent No.8 School on their respective posts between years 2012
and 2016, and their appointments were duly approved by the
Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they
have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth
IDs however, their Shalarth Approval Orders were never issued by the
Respondent Authorities to the Petitioners.
5.10. In Writ Petition No. 6333/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 10
are employees of the Petitioner No. 11 School, whereas Petitioner No.
12 is the School Management, wherein Petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 are
Assistant Teachers and Petitioner Nos.9 and 10 are working on the
post of Peon. The Petitioner Nos. 1 to 10 were appointed in the
Petitioner No. 11 School on the posts of Assistant Teacher between
years 2010 and 2013, and their appointments were duly approved by
the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they
have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth
IDs however, their Shalarth Approval Orders were never issued by the
Respondent Authorities to the Petitioners.
5.11. In Writ Petition No. 4010/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 10
are employees of the Petitioner No.11 and 12 School, wherein
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
77/140
Petitioner Nos. 1 to 9 are Assistant Teachers and Petitioner No. 10 are
working on the post of Peon. The Petitioner Nos.1 to 10 were
appointed in the Petitioner No. 11 and 12 School on the posts of
Assistant Teacher between years 2013 and 2018, and their
appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is
submitted by the Petitioners have been duly issued Shalarth IDs by
the Respondent Authorities consequent to the Scheme framed by the
State Government on 07.11.2012.
5.12. In Writ Petition No. 6329/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 17
are employees of the Respondent No. 7 to 15 School, wherein
Petitioner Nos. 13, 14 and 16 are working on the post of Peon, and
the rest of the Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The
Petitioner Nos. 1 to 17 were appointed in the Respondent No.7 to 15
School on their respective posts between the years 2009 and 2016,
and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent
Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly
submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs
however, their Shalarth Approval Orders were never issued by the
Respondent Authorities to the Petitioners.
5.13. In Writ Petition No.6336/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 13
are employees of the Respondent No.7 to 16 School, wherein all the
Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner Nos. 1 to
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
78/140
13 were appointed in the Respondent No.7 to 16 School on their
respective posts between the years 2015 and 2018, and their
appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is
submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft
proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs however, their Shalarth
Approval Orders were never issued by the Respondent Authorities to
the Petitioners.
5.14. In Writ Petition No. 5179/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 9
are employees of the Petitioner No.10 School and Petitioner No. 11 is
the Management, wherein Petitioner No. 1 is the Headmaster and the
rest of the Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The
Petitioner Nos. 1 to 9 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 10 School
on their respective posts between the years 2010 and 2011, and their
appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is
submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft
proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs however, their Shalarth
Approval Orders were never issued by the Respondent Authorities to
the Petitioners.
5.15. In Writ Petition No. 6330/2025, the Petitioner No.1 to 4 are
employees of the Petitioner No.5 School, wherein Petitioner No. 1 is
working on the post of Junior Clerk and the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are
working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 were
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
79/140
appointed in the Petitioner No.5 School on their respective posts
between the years 2010 and 2012, and their appointments were duly
approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the
Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the
approval of Shalarth IDs however, their Shalarth Approval Orders
were never issued by the Respondent Authorities to the Petitioners.
5.16. In Writ Petition No. 6332/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 19
are employees of the Petitioner No. 20 School and Petitioner No. 21 is
the Management, wherein Petitioner No. 18 is working on the post of
Junior Clerk, Petitioner No. 19 is working as Peon and the rest of the
Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner Nos. 1 to
19 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 20 School on their respective
posts between the years 2011 and 2013, and their appointments were
duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the
Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft proposals for the
approval of Shalarth IDs however, their Shalarth Approval Orders
were never issued by the Respondent Authorities to the Petitioners.
5.17. In Writ Petition No. 6331/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 24
are employees of the Petitioner No. 25 to 27 Schools and Petitioner
No. 28 to 30 are the Management, wherein Petitioner No. 4 is
working on the post of Junior Clerk, Petitioner No. 5 is working as
Peon and the rest of the Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
80/140
The Petitioner Nos. 1 to 24 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 25 to
27 Schools on their respective posts between the years 2010 and
2015, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent
Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly
submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs
however, their Shalarth Approval Orders were never issued by the
Respondent Authorities to the Petitioners.
5.18. In Writ Petition No. 6328/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 3
are employees of the Petitioner No. 4 School and Petitioner No. 5 is
the Management, wherein Petitioner No.1 to 3 are working as
Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 were appointed in the
Petitioner No. 4 School on the posts of Assistant Teacher in the year
2013, and their appointments were duly approved by the Respondent
Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly
submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs
however, their Shalarth Approval Orders were never issued by the
Respondent Authorities to the Petitioners.
5.19. In Writ Petition No. 7413/2025, the Petitioner No.1 to 6 are
employees of the Respondent No. 7 Schools, wherein Petitioner No.2
is working on the post of Clerk, Petitioner No. 6 is working as Peon
and the rest of the Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The
Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 were appointed in the respondent No. 7 School
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
81/140
on their respective posts between the years 2012 and 2014, and their
appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is
submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft
proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs however, their Shalarth
Approval Orders were never issued by the Respondent Authorities to
the Petitioners.
5.20. In Writ Petition No.6384/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 4 are
employees of the Petitioner No.5 to 6 Schools and Petitioner No. 7
and 8 are the Management, wherein all the Petitioners are working as
Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 were appointed in the
Petitioner No. 5 and 6 Schools on their respective posts between the
years 2012 and 2016, and their appointments were duly approved by
the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they
have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth
IDs however, their Shalarth Approval Orders were never issued by the
Respondent Authorities to the Petitioners.
5.21. In Writ Petition No. 6383/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 7
are employees of the Respondent No. 7 to 13 Schools, wherein all the
Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers. The Petitioner Nos. 1 to
7 were appointed in the Respondent No.7 to 13 Schools on their
respective posts between the years 2014 and 2021, and their
appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
82/140
submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft
proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs however, their Shalarth
Approval Orders were never issued by the Respondent Authorities to
the Petitioners.
5.22. In Writ Petition No. 7381/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 5
are employees of the Petitioner No. 6 School and Petitioner No. 7 is
the Management, wherein all the Petitioners are working as Assistant
Teachers. The Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 were appointed in the Petitioner
no. 6 School on the post of Assistant Teacher between the years 2012
and 2016, and their appointments were duly approved by the
Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the Petitioners that they
have duly submitted their draft proposals for the approval of Shalarth
IDs however, their Shalarth Approval Orders were never issued by the
Respondent Authorities to the Petitioners.
5.23. In Writ Petition No. 6038/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 11
are employees of the Petitioner No.12 School. The Petitioner Nos.1 to
11 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 12 School on the posts of
Assistant Teacher between years 2012 and 2014, and their
appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is
submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft
proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs however, their Shalarth
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
83/140
Approval Orders were never issued by the Respondent Authorities to
the Petitioners.
5.24. In Writ Petition No.6037/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 8 are
employees of the Petitioner No. 9 School. The Petitioner Nos. 1 to 8
were appointed in the Petitioner No. 9 School on the posts of
Assistant Teacher between years 2011 and 2012, and their
appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is
submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft
proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs however, their Shalarth
Approval Orders were never issued by the Respondent Authorities to
the Petitioners.
5.25. In Writ Petition No.6039/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 19
are employees of the Petitioner No. 20 School. The Petitioner Nos. 1
to 19 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 20 School on the posts of
Assistant Teacher between years 2015 and 2016, and their
appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is
submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft
proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs however, their Shalarth
Approval Orders were never issued by the Respondent Authorities to
the Petitioners.
5.26. In Writ Petition No. 6040/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 9
are employees of the Petitioner No. 10 School. The Petitioner Nos. 1
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
84/140
to 9 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 10 School on the posts of
Assistant Teacher between years 2012 and 2018, and their
appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is
submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft
proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs however, their Shalarth
Approval Orders were never issued by the Respondent Authorities to
the Petitioners.
5.27. In Writ Petition No. 6475/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 7
are employees of the Petitioner No. 8 School, wherein Petitioner No. 6
is working on the post of Peon, Petitioner No. 7 is working as Junior
Clerk and the rest of the Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers.
The Petitioner Nos.1 to 7 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 8
School on their respective posts in the year 2013, and their
appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is
submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft
proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs however, their Shalarth
Approval Orders were never issued by the Respondent Authorities to
the Petitioners.
5.28. In Writ Petition No.6477/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 7 are
employees of the Petitioner No. 8 School, wherein Petitioner No. 6 is
working on the post of Peon, Petitioner No. 7 is working as Junior
Clerk and the rest of the Petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
85/140
The Petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 were appointed in the Petitioner No. 8
School on their respective posts in the year 2013, and their
appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is
submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft
proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs however, their Shalarth
Approval Orders were never issued by the Respondent Authorities to
the Petitioners.
5.29. In Writ Petition No.5855/2025, the Petitioner No. 1 to 3 are
employees of the Respondent No. 3 School. The Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3
were appointed in the Respondent No. 3 School on the posts of
Assistant Teacher between the years 2012 and 2013, and their
appointments were duly approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is
submitted by the Petitioners that they have duly submitted their draft
proposals for the approval of Shalarth IDs and their respective
Shalarth ID numbers were duly issued by the Respondent Authorities
to the Petitioners.
5.31. In Writ Petition No.7043/2025, the Petitioner is an
employee of the Urdu Primary School, IBM Road, Gattikhadan
Nagpur. The Petitioner was appointed in the said School on the posts
of Assistant Teacher in the year 2017, and his appointment was duly
approved by the Respondent Authorities. It is submitted by the
Petitioner that he has duly submitted his draft proposal for the
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
86/140
approval of Shalarth ID and his Shalarth ID number was duly issued
by the Respondent Authorities to the Petitioners.
5.32. Learned counsel Mr.Anand Parchure, Mr.R.S.Parsodkar,
Mr.P.N. Shende and Mr.S.R.Narnaware for the petitioners relied on the
following citations:
(i) Writ Petition No.3057 of 2017 (Nilesh Subhash Jawanjal and
others v. State of Maharashtra and others ) and one connected
writ petition, decided on 14/09/2017.
(ii) Radha Kumari v. State of Bihar and others, 2002 SCC OnLine
Pat 746.
(iii) Order of Rajasthan High Court in Writ Petition No.2003 of
2024 (Sunil Dattatrey s/o Shri G.P.Dattatrey Ram v. The State
of Maharashtra and others), decided on 10/02/2025
(iv) Jagdamba Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. and others, (2000) 7
SCC 90.
(v) Writ Petition No.10436 of 2025, (Shri Anil Mallappa
Kanawade and others v. The State of Karnataka and others).
(vi) Letters Patent Appeal No.1244 of 2023, (Usha Kiran Sinha
Wife of Sri Arvind Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar and
others) and other connected matters.
(vii) Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh and
others, (2021) 6 SCC 771.
(viii) Judgment of this Court in Writ Petition 3839 of 2025 (Hemant
Baliram Deore and others v. The State of Maharashtra and
others) with connected petitions, decided on 27/03/2026
(ix) Radhey Shyam Yadav and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others, (2024) 11 SCC 770.
(x) S.L.Kapoor v. Jagmohan and others, (1980) 4 SCC 379.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
87/140
(xi) Olga Tellis and others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and
others, (1985) 3 SCC 545.
(xii) Andi Mukti Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna
Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Ors., (1989) 2 SCC 691.
6. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed their common affidavit-in-
reply, opposed the petitions and submitted that pursuant to the news
item published in daily Lokmat newspaper dated 19/06/2024 in
regard to grant of approvals to teachers under the signature of Late
Someshwar Naitam, the then Education Officer (Primary), Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur, who had expired on 24/10/2017, the answering
respondents found it necessary to order a detailed fact finding enquiry
vide communication dated 28/06/2024. The enquiry conducted by
the Education Officer (Primary and Secondary) categorically revealed
that no such approvals were ever issued from the office of the
Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur. In view of the
gravity of the allegations, separate committees were constituted of the
Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur and the Director of Education
(Primary) and independent enquiry officer was appointed on
23/08/2024 to conduct an initial enquiry and to examine the original
record.
6.1. During the said enquiry, it was revealed that there was large
scale misuse of Shalarth IDs system and that bogus Shalarth IDs were
generated without any valid offline Shalarth ID orders or approval
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
88/140
proposals issued by the Competent Authority. It was further found
that approvals were not granted by the office of the Education Officer
(Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur-respondent No.2 and that the bogus
Shalarth IDs were granted by certain person including the
Superintendent, Pay Unit (Primary), Nagpur in collusion at the level
of the headmaster without submission of any hard copy of proposals
or verification by the office of the respondents in complete violation
of prescribed procedure. Upon verification, the record pertaining to
the present petitioners were found to be not available in the office of
the answering respondents. The Director of Education (Scheme),
Pune also initiated an independent enquiry on the basis of the records
available with the answering respondents and found that the records
of as many as 632 teachers and non-teaching staff were not available.
Consequently, the Commissioner of Education vide communication
dated 25/07/2025 directed the Divisional Deputy Director of
Education being the higher authority to conduct hearing and to take a
decision regarding the validity of the alleged approvals strictly in
accordance with the GR dated 23/08/2017. It is further submitted
that the enquiry report specifically records that approvals filed and
related records of the present petitioners are not available in the
office of the answering respondents.
6.2. It is further submitted that the procedure governing the
appointments of every teaching and non-teaching post in aided,
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
89/140
partially aided and unaided school is specifically prescribed under
section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
(Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 read with Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules
of 1981 framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as “MEPS Act”
and “MEPS Rules” for the sake of brevity).
6.3. The GR dated 06/02/2012 laid down comprehensive
guidelines, regulating recruitment, grant of personal approval,
promotions and other service related matters concerning teaching and
non-teaching staff of the schools. The corrigendum dated 23/08/2017
expressly mandates that where the personal approval granted to any
teaching and non-teaching employee is proposed to be cancelled for
any reason whatsoever, a show cause notice must be issued to the
concerned employee affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing
and only thereafter an appropriate decision shall be taken by the
Competent Authority. This Court in Writ Petition No.10133 of 2016,
held that it is not within the jurisdiction of authority to review or
cancel its own earlier order. In view thereof, in order to clarify the
legal position and obviate any ambiguity, it was categorically directed
that where personal approval of any teaching and non-teaching staff
member is sought to be cancelled, the Senior Authority next above the
officer who originally granted such approval shall issue a show cause
notice, grant an opportunity of hearing and thereafter pass an
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
90/140appropriate order in accordance with the applicable service rules and
as per the corrigendum.
6.4. In view of the above, the Deputy Director of Education
specifically vested with the authority to cancel approvals granted to
appointments in aided educational institutions, strictly subject to
compliance with statutory service rules, reservation policies,
administrative scrutiny and the principles of natural justice.
6.5. The GR dated 20/03/2019 as modified and streamlined the
procedure governing the generation and approval of Shalarth IDs. In
pursuance to that, the State Government has expressly delegated and
conferred authority upon the respective regional offices of the
Education Department to scrutinize, process and decide proposals
pertaining to the grant, modification or cancellation of Shalarth IDs
within their respective jurisdiction. Thus, the action taken pursuant
thereto are strictly in accordance with the powers so conferred. It is
further submission of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 that they initiated
proceedings by issuing notice of hearing and detailed hearing
conducted from 16/09/2025 till 13/01/2026, wherein the petitioners
as well as the concerned school management representatives are
expressly informed of the scope, purpose and nature of the
proceedings and are specifically called upon to produce all relevant
records of approvals and the documents in support of the legality and
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
91/140validity of the appointments and the consequential approvals and
Shalarth IDs during hearing. It is also contention of the respondent
Nos.1 to 4 that the petitioners upheld full, fair and reasonable
opportunity in consonance with the principles of natural justice to
place on record their oral and written submissions along with the
documentary evidence. After carefully examining the documents, the
answering respondents arrived at a reasoned and definitive
conclusion that the mandatory, statutory provisions, GRs prescribed
recruitment procedures and policies had been blatantly violated. It is
further submitted that the appointments in question were made on
posts which were either non-sanctioned or non-existing, the
appointments were deliberately projected as sanctioned posts by
suppression and misrepresentation of material facts, that the
approvals and Shalarth IDs were thus obtained by fraudulent means
resulting in unauthorized and illegal withdrawal of salary from the
Government Exchequer. Accordingly, after recording detailed finding
supported by documentary evidence and legal provisions, these
respondents passed a reasoned order dated 29/01/2026, 03/02/2026
and approval orders and consequential Shalarth IDs of the petitioners-
employees were cancelled and thus it is claimed that the petitioners
do not possess any legally enforceable statutory or vested right to
claim salary through Shalarth Pranali. The generation of Shalarth IDs
being founded on an illegal, unauthorized and fraudulent
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
92/140appointment, does not confer any legal sanctity or right upon the
petitioners-employees and any salary drawn or claimed thereunder
would amount to an unauthorized and fraudulent withdrawal of
public funds.
6.6. The learned GP relied on the reportable judgment of this
Court in Writ Petition No.4162 of 2025 (Federation of Retail Traders
Welfare Associate and another v. State of Maharashtra and others ),
decided on 23/02/2025 and in Dulu Deka v. State of Assam and
others, (2023) 9 SCC 749.
7. The respondent No.5-Education Officer (Primary), Zilla
Parishad, Nagpur adopted the reply filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4
and he has accepted the contents of the reply of Deputy Director of
Education. It is submission of the respondent No.5 that the petition
has become infructuous as the final orders have passed in the matter
by the respondent No.4-Deputy Director of Education and order under
challenge dated 18/03/2025 has culminated into and stands merged
in order of invalidity of approval.
7.1. Second objection of the respondent No.5 is that there is no
privity of contract of employer and employee relation between the
petitioners-employees and Education Officer. As such, any claim for
grant of salary for work performed can only be made against the
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
93/140
employer i.e. management and school and therefore, the petitions are
not maintainable.
7.2. Third objection is that the petitioners are having alternative
remedy of civil suit. Fourthly, there is no constitutional, fundamental
and legal right to challenge or claim salary grant-in-aid given by the
State Government through Education Department to management of
school teachers. By its very nature government grant is given at the
discretion of Government and there cannot be judicial review of wide
administrative discretion either to give grant or refuse it.
7.3. Fifth objection is raised that the petitioners have not come
before this Court with clean hands and not disclosed or rather
suppressed that their approval orders are false, fabricated and forged
and those were never issued by the Education Officer-respondent
No.5. The entire petition is made with intent to defraud Exchequer. It
is submitted that the claim is based on fraud. It is also contention
that orders of approvals were never issued by the Education Officer
(Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
7.4. It is further submitted that UDISE+ is an electronic data of
all primary and secondary schools maintained by the Department of
Education and Literacy, Ministry of Education, Government of India.
Search of petitioners school code shows that the petitioners claimed
in para-2 of the petition that they were appointed in certain year is
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
94/140
false as UDISE+ does not show their names. No procedure for
appointment was followed in case of petitioners, as there are various
disputed question of facts which can be determined only upon
recording of oral evidence and affidavit evidence would be
insufficient to determine forgery, fabrication and fraud and criminal
intent of practitioner of fraud and therefore, the petitioners need to
be directed to take that recourse. It is specific contention of the
respondent No.5 that upon verification of final record, it was found
that those purported approval orders were never issued from the
office of the Education Officer as disclosed from inward, outward
register. Approval orders filed along with this petition were verified
whereupon it was revealed that the orders contained outward number
which when tallied with the official outward register shown different
orders and reached to the conclusion that those orders were never
issued by the Education Officer
7.5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 relied on the
following citations:
(i) St. Ulai High School and another v. Devendraprasad Jagannath
Singh and another, 2007 (1) Mh.L.J. 597.
(ii) Unni Krishnan J.P.and others v. State of Andhra Prasad and
others, (1993) 1 SCC 645.
(iii) Judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.170 of 2017
(Swargiya Raghobaji Bachale v. State of Maharashtra and
others) with connected petitions, decided on 20/09/2019.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
95/140
(iv) Government Aided Technical Institutes Employees Welfare
Board, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2024
SCC OnLine 1773.
(v) Nidhi Kaim and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and
others, (2017) 4 SCC 1.
(vi) Shrisht Dhawan (Smt) v. M/s Shaw Brothers, (1992) 1 SCC
534.
(vii) S.J.S.Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar and others,
(2004) 7 SCC 166.
(viii) S.Partap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72.
(ix) University of Kashmir and others v. Dr.Mohd. Yasin and others,
AIR 1974 SC 238.
(x) Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani v. N.M.Shah, Deputy Custodian
cum Managing Officer, Bombay and others, AIR 1966 SC 334.
(xi) Union of India v. T.R.Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882.
(xii) D.L.F. Housing Construction (P) Ltd. v. Delhi Municipal Corpn.
and others, AIR 1976 SC 386.
(xiii) Arya Vyasa Sabha etc. v. The Commissioner of Hindu
Charitable and Religious Institutions and Endowments,
Hyderabad and another, AIR 1976 SC 475.
(xiv) P. Radhakrishana Naidu and others v. Govt.of A.P.and others,
AIR 1977 SC 854.
8. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel
for the respective parties. The petitioners in these petitions placed on
record copies of approval orders. However, it is specific contention
that Shalarth IDs approval orders were never supplied to the
petitioners though online proposals were forwarded. From the various
GRs issued by the respondents-State, it is very much clear that there
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
96/140
was delay in issuing Shalarth IDs by the office of the Director of
Education. There was huge pendency of the proposals for issuance of
Shalarth IDs. As it was brought to the notice of the Government
about delay in issuance of Shalarth IDs and to dispose of the same, a
Special Action Committee came to be constituted vide GR dated
28/02/2018 (Annexure-IV), consisting of five persons, they were
directed to take decision on the proposals by 15/03/2018. Similarly,
they were also directed to take decision on new proposals submitted
to the Director of Education, Pune. As this task was over by 2019, a
new GR dated 20/03/2019 (Annexure-V) came to be issued, whereby
the Special Action Committee came to be dissolved. The Divisional
Deputy Director of Education is directed to take decision whether to
include the name in Shalarth Pranali after approval by the Education
Officer/Superintendent of Education. After the decision of Divisional
Deputy Director of Education, the Divisional President, Maharashtra
State Secondary and Higher Secondary Technical Education Board,
can take a decision in respect of inclusion of name in Shalarth Pranali.
The teacher/employee, who is appointed through Pavitra Portal, the
concerned Education Officer/ Superintendent of Education of the said
district will include their names in Shalarth Pranali. Though there is
omnibus denial that approvals were not issued by the office of the
Education Officer (Primary), nothing is placed on record to show that
the outward number mentioned in the collective annexures is not
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
97/140
issued by the office of the Education Officer. From the above referred
GRs, it also appears that there was pendency of proposals, therefore
what is submitted by the petitioners that they were not issued with
the Shalarth ID order and therefore insistence on behalf of the
respondents for Shalarth IDs is concerned, is not justified.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the
judgment in Nilesh Jawanjal v. State of Maharashtra and others
(supra), wherein this Court observed that proper website and due
diligence, a full-proof approval/permission to recruit can be given.
This is possible as vacancies are well known in advance and existing
staff is also within knowledge. Hence, roster point is pre-fixed. Grant
of permission to recruit contingent upon verification of roster point,
availability of surplus teacher or then the strength of students and the
procedure so far followed and operating, has created a mess in which
ultimately a teacher is made to suffer. Such teacher is not a party to
permission granted to recruit and in view of circular dated
23/08/2017, the impugned orders cancelling the approvals were
quashed and set aside. This Court observed in para-8 as under:
“8. Insofar as request of Mrs. Joshi, learned Additional
Government Pleader to permit the Competent Authority to
verify the cases again is concerned, in the wake of above
observations, we will permit such review or re-verification
only if facts so justify. Authority undertaking review shall
keep in mind the service put in by the concerned teacherKHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
98/140/non-teaching employee and effect of cancellation of
approval on him and his dependents. Only in compelling
situation, such orders of cancellation shall be passed. Such
orders of cancellation, if passed, shall not be given effect
for a period of four weeks after its service upon concerned
teacher / non-teaching employee.” (Emphasis supplied)In the present petition the orders are filed along with reply.
9.1. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment in
Radha Kumari v. State of Bihar (supra), wherein the Court analyzed
the maintainability of the writ petition in light of the availability of an
efficacious alternative remedy under the GST Act, wherein appeal
mechanism is provided. It is emphasized that where a statute provides
a complete and effective remedy, the writ jurisdiction of the High
Court is discretionary and should not ordinarily be exercised to bypass
the statutory remedy. However, where there are certain exceptions to
writ jurisdiction may be exercised, such as violation of fundamental
rights, breach of natural justice, orders passed without jurisdiction, or
defiance of judicial procedure. The Hon’ble Apex Court held in para-
17 held as under:
“17. The position of course would be different if there were
statutory provision under which such enquiry is to be held.
In that case the question of salary etc. would abide by the
terms of the statutory provisions. But as seen above there is
no rule on the point under which the enquiry is being held.
If that is so, while enquiry may proceed in the meantime,
salary cannot be withheld, indeed, non-payment of salary
would place an employee in much worse position than anKHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
99/140employee who is facing regular departmental proceeding
on charge of in-service misconduct. If an employee facing
regular departmental proceeding is entitled to subsistence
allowance as per the rules applicable to him and non-
payment thereof is likely to vitiate the departmental
proceeding itself as held in Capt. M. Paul Anthoney‘s case
(supra), it is beyond my comprehension as to how during
pendency of an enquiry relating to pre-appointment
conduct of the employee, his salary could be withheld.”
(Emphasis supplied)
9.2. In addition to above citation, the learned counsel also relied
on the decision in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal
Pradesh (supra), wherein it is held that an alternate remedy by itself
does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition
should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is
provided by law. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise
where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a
fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there
has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order
or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a
legislation is challenged.
9.3. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of
Rajasthan High Court in Sunil Dattatrey s/o Shri G.P.Dattatrey Ram v.
The State of Maharashtra and others (supra). In the said matter, the
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
100/140
Rajasthan High Court held that non-payment of salary to an employee
amounts to depriving him from his livelihood. Such person cannot be
allowed to starve at the hands of the authorities without any justified
reason. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees right to life,
which includes the right to livelihood. The right to life cannot be
subjected to individual fancies of the persons in authority. The sweep
of the right to life conferred by Article 21 of Constitution of India is
wide and far reaching. An important facet of that right is right to
livelihood, because no person can live without the means of living.
The Rajasthan High Court held in paras-6 and 12 as under:
“6. The right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to
life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The respondent-authorities on the one hand availing the
services of the petitioner and on the other hand, declining
the salary to him. Such exploitation amounts to depriving
the petitioner of his right to livelihood. Hence, the
respondent’s act of withholding the salary of the petitioner
for the period during which he discharged the services
cannot be approved. Till date, the respondents have
continued to utilize the services of the petitioner without
paying salary to him.”
“12. ‘Begar’ has been prohibited by Article 23 of the
Constitution of India and the said Article makes it
punishable in accordance with law made by the Parliament.
‘Begar’ means labour or service exacted by Government or a
person in power without giving remuneration for it. For the
purpose of constituting the offence of ‘Begar’ under Article
23 of the Constitution, it is not necessary that there should
be a complete denial of the wages or salary which may be
payable to the person from whom work is exacted. In orderKHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
101/140to ensure that the fundamental right under Article 23 of the
Constitution may not be frustrated, the expression ‘Begar’
will have to be liberally construed and if there is deliberate
denial of substantial part of salary and wages to which a
person is entitled for, offence of ‘Begar’ may be committed,
if there is no other just cause for denying the salary or
wages to the worker. To allow the respondents to deny
salary and wages to the petitioner would amount to
allowing the respondents to contravene the provisions of
Article 23 of the Constitution. It is impermissible.”
(Emphasis supplied)
9.4. It is contention of the petitioners that purported show cause
notice is not at all specific, nor any charges of irregularity, or fraud
alleged to have been committed while granting approval to the
petitioners-employees. Nothing is placed nor record along with reply
that there are different order for the outward number mentioned in
the letter of approval granted to the petitioners.
9.5. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on
Jagdamba Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P.and others (supra), wherein
the Hon’ble Apex Court held that non-payment of subsistence
allowance to a suspended employee during departmental enquiry
amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity, thereby violating
principles of natural justice. The Court ruled that conducting an
enquiry in such circumstances is unfair, and any punishment (like
dismissal) based on it is vitiated and invalid, as the employee was not
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
102/140
given a real chance to defend himself. In para 8 of the said judgment
the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:
“8. The payment of subsistence allowance, in accordance
with the Rules, to an employee under suspension is not a
bounty. It is a right. An employee is entitled to be paid the
subsistence allowance. No justifiable ground has been
made out for non-payment of the subsistence allowance all
through the period of suspension i.e. from suspension till
removal. One of the reasons for not appearing in inquiry as
intimated to the authorities was the financial crunch on
account of non-payment of subsistence allowance and the
other was the illness of the appellant. The appellant in
reply to the show-cause notice stated that even if he was to
appear in inquiry against medical advice, he was unable to
appear for want of funds on account of non-payment of
subsistence allowance. It is a clear case of breach of
principles of natural justice on account of the denial of
reasonable opportunity to the appellant to defend himself
in the departmental enquiry. Thus, the departmental
enquiry and the consequent order of removal from service
are quashed.”
9.6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that here the petitioners-employees are in more worst condition that
without there being any order, their salary came to be stopped and no
proper opportunity of hearing was granted. It is further contention of
the petitioners that the petitioners-employees have been made to
work without salary. Thus, the State has practised begar by non-
payment of salary to these petitioners for more than one year. The
petitioners relied on the judgment in Anil Mallappa Kanawade and
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
103/140
others v. The State of Karnataka and others (supra), wherein the
Karanataka High Court observed in para-11 as under:
11. If the elucidation of the law and Article 23 of the
Constitution of India is noticed qua the facts obtaining in
the case at hand, what would unmistakably emerge is, that
the State has practised begar by non-payment of salary to
these petitioners for over 19 months, as the teachers have
been made to work without salary. The State’s defence,
resting solely on the pendency of the writ proceedings, is
wholly untenable and bereft of any legal justification. It is
trite that no individual engaged in any form by anyone,
much less in public service, can be driven to work, under
the yoke of unpaid labour.”
9.7. The learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance
on Usha Kiran Sinha v. State of Bihar (supra) in support of his
contention that teachers were not having any role in issuance of
Shalarth IDs or in grant of approvals, nor there is any allegation
incapacity to discharge their duties. It is held in para-13 as under:
“13. We additionally observe that the allegations
raised in the Enquiry Report of the CBI was that, an
advertisement was not issued, candidates were not sourced
from the Employment Exchange, reservation roster was not
followed, sanction of the Competent authority was not
obtained and there was no interview; in the appointment of
the teachers who were proceeded with. These are
allegations against the government officers who appointed
the teachers and not necessarily a misconduct committed
by the newly appointed teachers. Indisputably all the
teachers who had service had an unblemished record and
there was nothing revealed in their service regarding theirKHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
104/140incapacity to discharge their duties or disentitlement to be
so appointed.” (Emphasis supplied).
9.8. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently
submitted that the petitioners were bona fide applicants from the
open market. The State approved their appointments and the
approval orders were valid. In the matter of Radhey Shyam Yadav
and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (supra), the appellants
were appointed on 25/06/1999 after due selection, their salaries
abruptly stopped from October 2005 on ground that Management in
collusion with appellants showed that three posts of Assistant
Teachers were sanctioned, while order dated 26-12-1997 sanctioned
only two posts of Assistant Teachers. There is no evidence produced to
demonstrate as to how appellants, who were applicants from open
market were guilty of collusion in manipulation. Rather, report of
enquiry initiated pursuant to direction of High Court indicating that
Manager of School in collusion with erstwhile District Basic Education
Officer and his office had changed number of posts from 2 to 3 in
order dated 26-12-1997. The Hon’ble Apex court held in para-23 as
under:
“23. Assuming the case of the State to be true and
taking it at its highest, the factual position would come to
this, namely, that while the State sanctioned two vacancies,
the School went ahead and recruited three. The State has
no proof of commission of any malpractice by the
appellants. The State approved their appointments, and theKHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
105/140approval order till date has not been cancelled. The
appointments have not been terminated. No action has
been taken against the School and the School continues to
receive the aid.” (Emphasis supplied)“32. The situation of the appellants in the present case
is no different from the individuals whose appointments
were protected in the cases cited hereinabove. They had no
blameworthy conduct. They were bona fide applicants from
the open market. The alleged mischief, even according to
the State, was at the end of the School and its Manager. It
will be a travesty of justice if relief is denied to the
appellants. Enormous prejudice would also occur to them.”
(Emphasis supplied)
10. In Writ Petition No.6083/2025 and other connected
matters, the Learned Counsel for Petitioner Shri. R.S. Parsodkar has
relied on S.L.Kapoor v Jagmohan (supra), wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that the order of disqualification passed
without granting an opportunity of hearing, is vitiated due to lack of
adherence to principles of natural justice. This stand of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court is further reiterated in Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal
Corporation (supra), where the Court reasoned that the right to life
includes the right to live with dignity and pursue livelihood.
10.1. Learned Counsel Shri R.S.Parsodkar further relied on
Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Andi Mukti Sadguru Shree
Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and
Ors. (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
106/140
academic staff under law were entitled to terminal benefits which
ought to have been paid simultaneously while being removed.
11. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5
relied on St.Ulai High School and others v. Devendraprasad Jagannath
Singh (supra) in support of his contention that the matter concerning
grant of approval is between the management and the Education
Officer and is relevant only for the release of grant by the State
Government to the management. Therefore, the school Tribunal to
decide the nature of appointment of respondent No.1 on the basis of
appointment order, advertisement, etc. and not on the basis of the
approval granted by the Education Officer.
However, the learned Senior Counsel drew our attention to
Clause 1.1, wherein reference before the Full Bench raises principally,
the issue as to whether a suit is maintainable in a Civil Court in
respect of matters set out in section 9 of the MEPS Act and Rule 12 of
the Rules framed thereunder. The substantial question of law raised
before the Bench in second appeal was “That the Civil Suit under
section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of matters
set out in section 9 of the MEPS Act and Rule 12 thereof are impliedly
barred.” In second appeal, the learned Judge found that he was not
agreed to the view taken by to other Division Benches on the question
of the necessity for approval of an appointment either as a condition
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
107/140
to the validity of the appointment or for conferring jurisdiction on the
Tribunal. Therefore, the matter was referred to the Full Bench. The
issues before the Court broadly are as under:
“2.2 Broadly speaking these issues fall into three
heads. Issues (1) and (2) deal with the question as to
whether a suit can be maintained before the Civil Court in
respect of those subjects on which an appeal has been
provided to the Tribunal by section 9 of the Act. Issues (3)
and (4) explore whether a decision taken by the Education
Officer on a question of seniority under Rule 12 can be
challenged in an appeal under section 9 of the Act before
the Tribunal and whether a suit in a Civil Court could be
maintainable to impugn the decision of the Education
Officer. The third head of issues consisting of Issues (5), (6)
and (7) investigates into the question as to whether an
appeal before the Tribunal can be maintainable where the
appointment of an employee has not been approved by the
Education Department of the State. The Court under the
third head has to explore the nature and basis of the
requirement of obtaining approval and the
interrelationship, if any, between the want of approval and
the maintainability of an appeal before the Tribunal.”
This Court after considering various provisions of MEPS Act,
held in paras 10.10 and 10.11 as under:
“10.10 Where the management has proceeded to
terminate the services of an employee on the ground of
non-approval by the Education Department, the employee
aggrieved by the act of termination is entitled to file an
appeal before the Tribunal under section 9. In such an
appeal, the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide
incidental and ancillary questions. …………………..”
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
108/140
“10.11 We have already held that the disbursal of
grant-in-aid or any dispute in regard to a breach of a
condition of aid by the management constitutes a lis
between the management and the Government. We,
however, wish to clarify that in an appropriate case where
the non-approval of the services of a teacher by the
Education Department affects a right of the teacher such as
in regard to the disbursal of the pensionary benefits or a
declaration of a teacher as a surplus employee, the right to
challenge an order of non-approval in appropriate
proceedings would be preserved.”
It is held that Neither the MEPS Act, 1977, nor the Rules
framed thereunder mandate the grant of approval by the Education
Officer as a condition precedent to a valid order of appointment. The
requirement of approval which relates to the disbursal of grant in aid
is a matter between the management and the State and want of
approval will not invalidate an order of appointment.
The judgments of the Division Benches of this Court in
Anna Manikrao Pethe vs. Presiding Officer, and Shailaja Ashokrao
Walse vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) to the extent that they hold
that an appeal is not maintainable before the Tribunal at the behest of
an employee whose appointment has not been approved do not
reflect the correct position in law and are overruled.
As such, this Court answered the reference and held that
the legislature having provided for a remedy before the Tribunal only
in respect of the subject spelt out in clause A and B of sub-section (1)
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
109/140
of Section 9. In those cases, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is
impliedly barred. Thus, the ratio laid down in this citation is not
relevant in the present set of facts, as there is no termination on the
ground of non-approval, in fact, copies of approval orders are on
record and the respondents have not placed anything on record to
show that the said outward numbers in order of approval are not
available with the office of the Education Officer and different orders
other than the approval to the respective petitioners are there on the
said outward numbers.
11.1. The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 also placed
reliance on judgment in Unni Krishnan J.P. and others v. State of
Andhra Pradesh (supra) in support of his contention that a citizen of
this country may have a right to establish an educational institution
but no citizen, person or institution has a right much less a
fundamental right, to affiliation or recognition, or to grant-in-aid
from the State. The issue before the Hon’ble Apex Court was in
respect of growing commercialization of education and to curb that,
the Hon’ble Apex Court made it clear that education is not just a
business. It is observed that running private aided, unaided,
recognized affiliated educational institution conducting professional
courses such as medical, engineering courses, its admission and
charging of capitation fees in such institution are subject to conditions
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
110/140
and regulations of the State. The learned counsel relied on para-3A
of the said judgment which reads as under:
“3.A citizen of this country may have a right to establish an
educational institution but no citizen, person or institution
has a right much less a fundamental right, to affiliation or
recognition, or to grant-in-aid b from the State, The
recognition and/or affiliation shall be given by the State
subject only to the conditions set out in, and only in
accordance with the scheme contained in Part III of this
Judgment. No Government/University or authority shall be
competent to grant recognition or affiliation except in
accordance with the said scheme. The said scheme shall
constitute a condition of such recognition or affiliation, as
the case may be, in addition to such other conditions and
terms which such Government, University or other
authority may choose to impose. Those receiving aid shall,
however, be subject to all such terms and conditions, as the
aid giving authority may impose in the interest of general
public.”
The facts involved in the said matter are totally different.
Here there is no issue of recognition or grant-in-aid. The said
recognition and grant-in-aid is already extended to the petitioner-
institution. Once it is admitted for grant, it cannot be stopped
abruptly without granting proper opportunity of hearing.
11.2. The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 placed reliance
on the judgment of this Court in Swargiya Raghobaji Bachale v. State
of Maharashtra and others (supra). The reliance placed on this
judgment is misplaced. In the said matter, school challenged the
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
111/140
State’s decision to let them operate as self-financed business to run
the schools and colleges on self financed basis and denied the grant-
in-aid from the State Government. In view of this specific challenge,
this Court held that the grant-in-aid is neither a fundamental right,
nor a statutory right and it depends upon the economic capacity of
the State. In the present matter, there is no such a ground for
stoppage of salary.
11.3. The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 placed reliance
on the judgment of this Court in Government Aided Technical
Institutes Employees Welfare Board Aurangabad v. State of
Maharashtra and others (supra). This Court considered whether
employees of government-aided technical institutes could demand
certain financial or service benefits from the State as a matter of right.
The petitioner-Board seeking release of 100% salary and allowances
to its members through HTE-Sevarth Pranali and also assailed Clause
10 of the GR stipulates to disburse 90% of salary through HTE-
Sevarth Pranali leaving balance 10% to be disbursed at level of
institutions. The State cannot be put to an obligation to release grant-
in-aid in addition to 90% maintenance grant. In view of this
background, the petition came to be dismissed. It is held in para-24
as under:
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
112/140“24. …………………. It is, therefore, clear that it is the
duty of the management to arrange for the funds to
discharge their statutory obligation to ensure 100% salary
in tune with the prescribed pay scales. The employees
cannot be deprived of their statutory entitlement. However,
to meet out such deficit, the State Government cannot be
put to an obligation to release grant-in-aid in addition to
90% maintenance grants provided under the Scheme of
1978. In that view of the matter, we do not find any
substance in the first prayer of the petitioner by which
Clause No. 10 of the Government Resolution dated 21-8-
2015 has been impugned.” (Emphasis supplied)
However, in our considered opinion, the above referred
judgment is of no use to the respondent No.5. Once school is
admitted for 100% grant-in-aid basis, it’s State obligation to pay
100% grant to the petitioner-institution. In the matter referred above
those schools were admitted for 90% grant-in-aid basis, the petitioner
was asking for 100%. In the present matter, there is no such issue
involved .
11.4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 placed reliance
on the judgment in Nidhi Kaim and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh
(supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with fallout of the
Vyapam Scam, where large-scale irregularities were found in medical
entrance examinations. The key issue was whether admissions
obtained through such a tainted process should be cancelled, even if
some students claimed innocence. The Court took a strict stance,
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
113/140
holding that when the entire selection process is vitiated by fraud,
individual claims of innocence cannot override the need to maintain
the integrity of the system. As a result, admissions of candidates
found to be beneficiaries of the irregularities were cancelled,
emphasizing that fraud in public examinations cannot be tolerated.
The learned counsel placed reliance on para-50 of the said judgment,
wherein submissions of the appellant is reproduced by the Hon’ble
Apex Court. Similarly, the question was, whether the consequences of
established fraud, as repeatedly declared by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court can be ignored to do complete justice in a matter in exercise of
jurisdiction in the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution? Whether the consequences of fraud can be overlooked
in the facts and circumstances of this case, in order to render
complete justice to the appellant? The Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that it would not be proper to legitimize the admission of the
appellant to the MBBS Course in exercise of the jurisdiction vested
with the Hon’ble Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India.
In the judgment referred above, the fraud was established,
whereas, in the present matter without granting any opportunity of
hearing or without there being any contention of fraud in the show
cause notice, the salary was stopped since March, 2025.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
114/140
11.5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 also placed
reliance on Shrisht Dhawan (Smt) v. M/s. Shaw Brothers (supra).
However, it pertains to short term tenancy under section 21 of the
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. In fact though learned counsel for the
respondent No.5 relied on this judgment, in support of his contention
that fraud is essentially a question of fact, the burden to prove which
is upon him who alleges it. In the present matter, it is not established
that the petitioners have committed any fraud. What is held in para-
10 of the said judgment is as under:
“10. Fraud is essentially a question of fact, the burden to
prove which is upon him who alleges it. He who alleges
fraud must do so promptly. There is a presumption of
legality in favour of a statutory order. The Controller’s order
under Section 21 is presumed to be valid until proved to be
vitiated by fraud or mala fide. If his order was obtained by
the fraud a party seeking it or if he made a ‘mindless order’
in the sense of acting mala fide by illegitimate exercise of
power owing to non-application of his mind to the strict
requirements of the section, then the special mechanism of
the section would not operate.”
11.6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 placed reliance
on S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar and others
(supra). In the said matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with
two main issues–suppression of facts in writ petitions and fairness in
State action. It held that merely not disclosing a fact (like filing a
prior civil suit) does not automatically kill a writ petition unless that
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
115/140
fact is material and affects the merits of the case. Since the suit had
already been withdrawn and the writ was otherwise maintainable, it
was held that the High Court was wrong to dismiss it only on that
ground. In fact, this judgment supports the contention of the
petitioners on merits, the Court found that the State Financial
Corporation had acted unfairly and in undue haste while selling the
appellant’s property–giving almost no time for bids, conducting the
process suspiciously, and failing to ensure a fair price. The Court
emphasized that State authorities must act reasonably, transparently,
and in good faith, especially in public sales. Because the process was
clearly flawed, the sale was set aside.
11.7. The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 placed reliance
on the judgment in S. Partap Singh v. State of Punjab (supra). The
Hon’ble Apex Court held that the Doctrine of Pleasure under Article
310 is not absolute, and the State cannot force an employee to
continue in service beyond the prescribed term or retirement. It also
ruled that any administrative action obtained through fraud is invalid.
There is no dispute over this proposition. However, it is a
matter of fact that no FIR against the employees nor there is any
specific allegation of fraud or misrepresentation against the
petitioners-employees.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
116/140
11.8. The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 relied on the
judgment in University of Kashmir and others v. Dr.Mohd. Yasin and
others (supra). In the said matter, the Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with
the issue whether actions of a university, though not strictly a
government department can be challenged under writ jurisdiction.
The Court held that when a body like a university performs public
functions and exercises powers affecting rights (like employment or
academic decisions), its actions are subject to judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It emphasized that public
authorities must act fairly and not arbitrarily, and if their actions
violate principles of natural justice or are unreasonable, courts can
intervene. [
In the present matter, we do not see any opportunity was
granted to the petitioners-employees nor any show cause notice
specifically pointing out what fraud the petitioners-employees have
committed is issued. It is clear that no principles of natural justice
were followed.
11.9. The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 also placed
reliance on the judgment in Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani v. N. M.
Shah, Deputy Custodian cum Managing Officer, Bombay and others
(supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court was dealing with action of
authorities under the Evacuee Property laws. The question before the
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
117/140
Hon’ble Apex court was that whether such action could be challenged
through writ jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that when a
statute provides a complete machinery of remedies (like appeals and
revisions), parties are generally expected to follow that route rather
than directly approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. However, it also clarified that writ jurisdiction is
not completely barred–it can still be used in exceptional cases such
as lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or clear illegality. It
is held that a writ of mandamus is granted only in a case where there
is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a
failure on the part of that officer to discharge that statutory
obligation. The chief function of the writ is to compel the
performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep the
subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within
the limits of their jurisdictions. Before Mandamus can be issued to a
public servant it must, therefore, be shown that a duty towards the
applicant has been imposed upon the public servant by statute so that
he can be charged thereon, and independently of any duty which as
servant he may owe to his principal.
11.10. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment in
Union of India v. T. R. Varma (supra). However, in our considered
opinion, it is not relevant for the facts of the present case. It is on the
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
118/140
point of alternate remedy if available whether what is the scope of
writ jurisdiction in service matters. It is held that although the
existence of an alternative remedy (like a departmental appeal) is not
an absolute bar to approaching the High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, the Court generally refused to interfere
when such remedy is exhausted. In the present matter, we do not
found any efficacious remedy. In fact, there is no order issued by the
respondents authorities before stopping the salary. The Hon’ble Apex
Court held that exception would apply particularly where there is a
violation of principles of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction or patent
illegality.
11.11. The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 relied on the
judgment in D.L.F. Housing Construction (P) Ltd. v. Delhi Municipal
Corpn.and others (supra) in support of his contention that
contractual disputes without any public law element are generally not
entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is
clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court that even when a dispute arises
out of a contract with a public authority, its action can still be
subjected to judicial review, if they are arbitrary, unreasonable, or in
violation of statutory provisions.
11.12. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment in
Arya Vyasa Sabha etc. v. The Commissioner of Hindu Charitable and
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
119/140
Religious Institutions and Endowments, Hyderabad and another
(supra). However, in our considered opinion, it is not relevant to the
present set of facts.
11.13. The learned counsel also placed reliance P. Radhakrishana
Naidu and others v. Govt.of A.P.and others (supra). The Hon’ble Apex
Court examined the validity of State action affecting rights of
individuals and reiterated that government decisions must be fair,
reasonable, and non-arbitrary. It emphasized that even when the State
exercises administrative or statutory powers, such actions are open to
judicial review if they violate constitutional principles, particularly
equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court made
it clear that arbitrariness in State action is itself a ground for
invalidity, and any decision lacking fairness or rational basis can be
struck down.
11.14. It is contention of the respondent No.5 that several
petitioners have combined as petitioners. Their causes of action are
separate and independent. Each is alleged to be an instance of
individual assertion of constitutional right in regard to facts and
circumstances of each case. In the present matter, we do not see any
such necessity to file individual matter as cause of action is same.
12. Learned GP Shri D. V. Chauhan placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court in Federation of Retail Traders Welfare
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
120/140
Associate and another v. State of Maharashtra and others (supra). In
the said judgment this Court relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in DN Jeevaraj v. Chief Secretary, Government of
Karanataka and others, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 4811 and held in para
3 as under:
“3. In DN Jeevaraj (supra), the Supreme Court put it like
this:
“37. In such cases, that might not strictly fall in the
category of public interest litigation and for which other
remedies are available, insofar as the issuance of a writ of
mandamus is concerned, this Court held in Union of India
v. S.B. Vohra [ (2004) 2 SCC 150: 2004 SCC (L&S) 363]
that: (SCC p. 160, paras 12-13)“12. Mandamus literally means a command. The
essence of mandamus in England was that it was a
royal command issued by the King’s Bench (now
Queen’s Bench) directing performance of a public
legal duty.
13. A writ of mandamus is issued in favour of a person
who establishes a legal right in himself. A writ of
mandamus is issued against a person who has a legal
duty to perform but has failed and/or neglected to do
so. Such a legal duty emanates from either in
discharge of a public duty or by operation of law. The
writ of mandamus is of a most extensive remedial
nature. The object of mandamus is to prevent disorder
from a failure of justice and is required to be granted
in all cases where law has established no specific
remedy and whether justice despite demanded has not
been granted.”
38. A salutary principle or a well-recognised rule that
needs to be kept in mind before issuing a writ of
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
121/140
mandamus was stated in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate
Ltd. v. Union of India [(1974) 2 SCC 630] in the following
words: (SCC pp. 641-42, paras 24-25)
“24. … The powers of the High Court under Article
226 are not strictly confined to the limits to which
proceedings for prerogative writs are subject in
English practice. Nevertheless, the well-recognised
rule that no writ or order in the nature of a
mandamus would issue when there is no failure to
perform a mandatory duty applies in this country as
well. Even in cases of alleged breaches of
mandatory duties, the salutary general rule, which
is subject to certain exceptions, applied by us, as it
is in England, when a writ of mandamus is asked
for, could be stated as we find it set out in
Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd Edn.), Vol. 11, p.
106:
‘198. Demand for performance must
precede application. – As a general rule the
order will not be granted unless the party
complained of has known what it was he
was required to do, so that he had the
means of considering whether or not he
should comply, and it must be shown by
evidence that there was a distinct demand
of that which the party seeking the
mandamus desires to enforce, and that
that demand was met by a refusal.’
25. In the cases before us there was no such
demand or refusal. Thus, no ground whatsoever is
shown here for the issue of any writ, order, or
direction under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
12.1. The learned GP also placed reliance on Dulu Deka v. State
of Assam and others (supra), wherein appellant’s appointment, along
with 509 others, was declared illegal and void ab initio as it was made
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
122/140against non-existent posts and without any proper selection process.
She did not challenge the cancellation order. The Court held that she
had no right to continue in service or claim salary thereafter,
especially given the lack of evidence, jurisdictional inconsistencies,
and delay in approaching the court. The Hon’ble Apex Court held in
para-10 as under:
“10. Once the appointment of the appellant had been
declared illegal and void ab initio, and was cancelled by the
Director of Elementary Education, Assam vide Order dated
18-10-2001, the appellant could not legally continue in
service thereafter, unless that cancellation order was set
aside. It has been noticed by the High Court that the Order
dated 18-10-2001 was never challenged by the appellant.
Thus, the appellant had no legal right to continue in service,
especially when there is no order or letter placed on record
by the appellant that she was allowed to continue beyond
31-3-2002. No claim for payment of salary could be made
for any period. Even otherwise, it is difficult to believe that
a person has been working for two decades without any
salary, Even the writ petition was filed by her in the High
Court in the year 2008, claiming salary from 12-3-2001
onwards i.e. seven years later.” (Emphasis supplied)
13. The facts involved in the above referred citation are totally
distinguishable from the facts involved in the present matters. There
was no claim by the appellant before the Hon’ble Apex Court
challenging her cancellation of appointment or claim for any salary
for near about two decades. Here, the present petitioners were
receiving salary till February, 2025. Even their services are approved
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
123/140by the Education Officer long back. Though it is contended that these
orders of approvals are not issued by the office of the Education
Officer, there is no material placed on record to show that there is any
different order other than approval with regard to the outward
number mentioned in approval order. The respondents ought to have
placed on record which is the letter/order in respect of outward
number in each individual order of approval.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention
to the GR dated 10/06/2022, wherein earlier GRs were considered
and procedure for grant of individual approval as well as inclusion of
the names of teaching and non-teaching staff in Shalarth Pranali is
provided. There is timeline given by the GR. As per this GR, the
Management required to submit proposal of the employee within a
period of one month from the date of appointment to the Deputy
Director of Education. For secondary school and junior colleges
proposal is to be forwarded to the Divisional President or Divisional
Examination Board. Thereafter, within a period of one month after
receipt of proposal, the concerned Deputy Director of Education
would take steps to complete the process of inclusion of the name of
the candidate in Shalarth Pranali. If there are any appointment prior
to the date of GR dated 10/06/2022, duty casted on the Education
Officer/Education Inspector to intimate to the concerned educational
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
124/140institution to forward their proposal within a period of three months
for individual approval. The concerned institution whose proposals
for individual approval are pending, are directed to submit within
three months to the Education Officer/Education Inspector/Divisional
Deputy Director of Education. The concerned Education Officer/
Education Inspector/Divisional Deputy Director of Education shall
take a decision within a period of three months. If the above referred
procedure is not followed by any of the Authority, the Director of
Education may direct departmental enquiry. The said authorities are
bound to submit a proposal for inclusion of name of employee in
Shalarth Pranali to Divisional Examination Board within a period of
one month from the decision and thereafter, the concerned Education
Officer/Education Inspector/Divisional Deputy Director of Education
and Divisional Examination Board to complete the process of
inclusion of name in Shalarth Pranali.
15. It is specifically mentioned in Clause 2.5 that if the
procedure prescribed in the GR dated 06/02/2012 and also the
present GR dated 10/06/2022 was not followed, the Deputy Director
of Education while granting individual approval, if it is revealed to
him that without following procedure as per GR dated 06/02/2012 or
present GR dated 10/06/2022 the approvals were granted, then the
concerned Authorities are liable for departmental enquiry and any
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
125/140loss to the Government due to such individual approval, the same will
be made good from the salary of the concerned officer. If it is found
that recruitment is made and individual approvals are granted
contrary to the procedure, the Commissioner of Education take a final
decision after granting due opportunity to the educational institution/
management. The Commissioner of Education, was entrusted with the
power to cancel recognition of the school or any other severe
punishment.
16. It is mandatory as per Clause 3.1 that if there is prima facie
opinion of the Deputy Director of Education that after considering the
proposal and documents along with that, the individual approval
granted was illegal, faulty and improper, he has to issue interim order
necessarily. There is detailed procedure mentioned in this clause. It
was directed that the said interim order must include on what basis
the individual approval is incorrect or illegal. The reasons for coming
to prima facie opinion, it is also necessary to mention therein that
detailed enquiry in the matter will be conducted. It is also directed
that in such matters, for detailed enquiry the concerned employee, the
concerned school management/educational institution as well as the
officer, who has granted individual approvals were all may notice and
after hearing them, it is mandatory to pass detailed order. If it is
found that the individual approval was granted rightly, the name of
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
126/140the concerned employee be included in Shalarth Pranali. Thus, it can
be seen that there is duty casted on the authority before including the
name of the candidate in Shalarth Pranali. It is also reveals from the
GR issued by the respondents from time to time that there was a huge
pendency of the proposals for inclusion of the names of the
candidates in Shalarth Pranali and to overcome this difficulty, the
State of Maharashtra constituted a “Special Action Committee”
consisting of four members including Commissioner of Education, two
Superintendent of Education and one nominee of employees’
association. This Committee was directed to take decision till
15/03/2018 and also the subsequent proposals which would be
submitted to the Special Action Committee. The said Committee was
dissolved by GR dated 28/03/2019 and the Divisional Deputy
Director of Education directed to take the decision. The Divisional
President of Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Secondary
Technical Education Board would take decision of inclusion of name
in Shalarth Pranali.
17. Thus, it can be seen that though proposals were approved
by the Education Officer, many of the employees started receiving
salary through grants, but they were not supplied with the copies of
the Shalarth IDs for the reasons stated above. During the pendency of
these petitions, there is recent judgment passed by the Principal Seat
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
127/140
in Hemant Baliram Deore and others v. The State of Maharashtra and
others (supra) and relied on by the learned counsel for the
petitioners. The facts involved in the said petition are identical to the
facts involved in the present petitions. We fully agree with the
findings recorded by the Principal Seat in the above referred
judgment in Hemant Baliram Deore and others v. The State of
Maharashtra and others (supra), wherein the Principal Seat of this
Court formulated 5 issues and recorded their answered accordingly,
which are reproduced as under:
12. We find that there are five issues to be considered in
these cases, which are as under:
(a) Whether the show-cause notices contained specific
instances of irregularities, to enable the employees as well
as the Management to respond to the specific allegations?
(b) Whether there is a large passage of time between the
closing of the matters and the date of the passing of the
impugned orders?
(c) Whether the hearings conducted by the Competent
Authority, by calling 150 employees along with their
Management and Headmasters, on a single day and
collecting their written submissions filled into the
prescribed formats appended to the show-cause notice, can
be said to be appropriate hearings?
(d) Whether the deficiencies noticed by the Competent
Authorities in the appointments of the employees, amount
to illegalities or irregularities, and whether any of such
irregularities were condonable?
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
128/140
(e) Whether there are any allegations of fraud or
misrepresentation in the show-cause notices or conclusions
against the Employees?”
“13. With regard to the first issue, we find from the show
cause notices issued to the Petitioner employees, that there
are hardly any details worth mentioning in the notice in
order to enable the noticees to understand or gather as to
what are the reasons or grounds on which the notices have
been issued for the purpose of cancellation of approvals. If
the Marathi paragraph in the notice is to be translated in
English, it would make out the following meaning:
Taking into account Reference Serial No. 2.
(Corrigendum), an officer who is one level senior shall
conduct the hearing with regard to Reference Serial Nos. 3
to 5 pertaining to irregularities in the approvals granted.
The hearing is scheduled as per the following programme,
and the Education Officer (Secondary), the then Education
Officer (Secondary), the President/Secretary. Headmaster
of the school, and the Petitioner employees, shall show
cause as to why the approval granted to the employees
should not be the cancelled. If any of the parties fail to
appear in the matter, an ex parte decision would be arrived
at. Hearing Date: 07/05/2025
Time: 10:30 to 5:00
Venue: Naurasji Wadia College, Pune 411001.
14. It does not require any debate that the above show
cause notice does not even whisper of any specific charge
of irregularity, much less, point out any particular illegality
or fraud alleged to have been committed while granting
approval to the Petitioner employees.”
Relying on the judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise
Bangalore v. Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd. and others, (2007) 5 SCC
388, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held that the show cause notice is
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
129/140
the foundation on which the department has to built up its case. If the
allegation in the show cause notice are not specific and are contrary,
vague, lack details and/or unintelligible that is sufficient to hold that
the noticee was not given proper opportunity to meet the allegations
indicated in the show-cause notice. In the matter before the Hon’ble
Apex Court the appellant has tried to highlight of the alleged
connection between the various concerns. It is held by Hon’ble Apex
Court that it is not sufficient to proceed against the respondents
unless it is shown that they were parties to the arrangements, if any.
The Principal Seat of this Court observed in paras-16 and 17 as under:
“16. We also find from the impugned order that batches
of 150 employees were given time between 10:30 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. on a particular day to address the authority. Each
of these noticees was permitted to tender their explanation
by filling up the cyclostyled format attached to the show
cause notice. Not a single teacher was granted a hearing in
the proceeding, save and except, the liberty of tendering
the filled-in form, which was in the nature of a
questionnaire.”
“17. So also, it appears that the incumbent Education
Officer, as well as the then Education Officers, who are
alleged to have resorted to illegalities and irregularities,
were absent, since they were attending a similar
proceeding being conducted by another nominated officer
who had published the schedule for a particular institution
and employees, under the same Zilla Parishad. These
officers, therefore, could not be present at two places at the
same time and on the same day.”
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
130/140
and held that the Court find fault with the show cause
notices issued to these petitioners and those cannot be sustained. It is
also held by this Court in answer to second issue as under:
“21. Considering that four pages of the impugned order
contain copying of the replies of the parties, and 3/4th of
the last page contains cryptic analysis and conclusion, we
find that, probably because of the passage of 7 to 8 months,
the entire material placed before the authority has not been
considered in a proper perspective. Proper consideration of
the material available and reasons to support the
conclusion, are the factors which indicate application of
mind. Assigning reasons for justifying the conclusions, is a
Sine-Quo-Non while passing the impugned order. The
impugned order would, therefore, be faulted on this count
as well. Hence, our answer to issue no. 2.”
In answer to issue No.3, the Principal Seat observed as
under:
“23. It is anybody’s guess that if 150 employees are to enter
the venue and tender their filled-in forms/written
submissions, as also by the Management and Head Master,
and none of them was allowed to express any view, but,
had to leave the venue, such a hearing cannot be said to be
an appropriate hearing. More so, when the nominated
authority was considering cancellation of the approvals of
the teachers, cancellation of their Shalarth-IDs, and which
would result in their termination from employment.
Termination from service amounts to civil death. We,
therefore, express our serious displeasure for the manner in
which the hearing has been conducted.
24. Taking into account that these Petitioner teachers were
working for between 10 to 15 years, there was no reason
for the nominated authority to resort to such a ‘undue-
haste’ procedure of conducting the hearings, which clearlyKHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
131/140appears to be a farce or an eye-wash. When these teachers
were working for more than a decade and half, proper
hearings should have been conducted. keeping in view that
termination from service would amount to a civil death for
such teachers. We, therefore, disapprove of the manner of
conducting the hearing. The hearing is, therefore, faulty
and cannot be sustained. Hence, our answer to issue no.3.”
(Emphasis supplied)
In answer to issue Nos.4 and 5 (d & e), it is held as under:
“29. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners is right in
contending that if the show cause notice had indicated the
grounds on which the Petitioner was called upon to show
cause, the Petitioner would at least have come to know the
reasons for which the show cause notice was issued.
Neither the employee, the Management, nor the Head
Master was aware of why the show cause notice had been
issued. No fraud or illegality has been alleged.”
“31. This Court has, therefore, concluded that the
approvals granted cannot be interfered with and cannot be
set aside, save and except for the reason that a fraud has
been committed. Even if the Education Officer granted
approval erroneously, the same cannot be made a ground
to recall the approval order and pass a cancellation order,
unless a case of fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression is
established. The length of service of the Petitioners, beyond
a decade, was also considered by the Court.”
“32. A glance at the impugned orders makes it clear that
there is no conclusion by the nominated authority that the
Petitioner employees or the Management have indulged in
a fraud or misrepresentation. The grounds for quashing the
approvals are that the roster reservation was not properly
followed, that a candidate did not have the TET
qualification, or that prior permission from the Education
Department for carrying out recruitment was not taken.”
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
132/140
“33. It must be borne in mind that when these Petitioners
were appointed more than a decade ago, the Pavitra Portal
Pranali was not in vogue; it was brought into effect
pursuant to a judgment of this Court. There is no
conclusion by the nominated authority that fraud or
misrepresentation has been indulged in, either by the
Management or by the teachers.”
“34. A glance at the impugned order gives us a prima facie
view that the reasons mentioned for cancellation of
approval,actually turn upon the conduct of the
Management. It was the Management which can be alleged
to have not followed the roster reservation. It is the
Management which can be alleged to have indulged in an
irregularity of not seeking prior permission of the
Education Authority. It could be the Management which
can be alleged to have indulged in an irregularity of
publishing the advertisement in unknown or less circulated
news papers, if that be the case. The Management should
have been called upon to explain its conduct.”
18. This Court observed that nominated authority has not
uttered a word against such a Management. The resultant effect of
cancellation of the approval and Shalarth-ID, is like a death knell to
the employees who are not at fault. They are likely to lose their
employment due to purported irregularities committed by the
Management. This Court noted that the irregularities were
condonable. As this Court held that the notices are unsustainable and
if the Authorities desired to take a proper hearing in these matters,
they are at liberty to issue appropriate show cause notices afresh
mentioning the specific ground in each case of the teachers or
management as being ground only towards indicating fraud or
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
133/140
misrepresentation. Any issue touching an irregularity can also be
confronted but only with the management and if is is noticed that the
management had indulged in such irregularities, the authority would
be at liberty to pass orders penalizing the management by any
appropriate mode or by imposing heavy costs to be deposited in the
State Exchequer. Unless a fraud or misrepresentation is noticed and
the teachers can be held to be party to such acts, the approval orders
of the petitioners shall not be questioned.
19. In fact, after putting service for more than 10 to 15 years in
such hasty manner, the enquiry is concluded without granting proper
opportunity is itself violation of principles of natural justice. It is a
matter of record that the schools were being inspected every year and
none of the Authorities raised any objection about the approvals or
any other irregularity or illegality since 10 to 15 years of petitioners-
employees’ appointments. Even if it is presumed that there is any
irregularity and if timely action would have been taken, the
petitioners-employees would have opportunity to opt for any other
job. However, after 10 to 15 years of service, after granting due
approval, after payment of salary years together, their approvals were
cancelled without granting proper opportunity of hearing rendering
them without income. Many of them might have crossed age to secure
any alternative job.
20. Moreover, the communication dated 21/04/2025 called
upon the headmaster of the school to submit information of the
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
134/140
teachers, who were allotted Shalarth IDs during the period of
31/03/2019 to 31/03/2025. In view thereof, the petitioners-
employees who were appointed long back prior 10 to 15 years before
the date of 31/03/2019 which is mentioned in notice, for want of
their information stopping of their salary is totally illegal. As such,
what information is sought for is not pertaining to the teachers, who
were receiving salary from the grants. As alleged by the petitioners-
employees, the copies of Shalarth IDs were not supplied to some of
the schools though granted. Though as per the scheme provided in
GR dated 07/11/2012, the details of the petitioners were uploaded
on the Shalarth Portal. It is contended that except for uploading those
details, the management or the petitioners-employees had no role to
play in issuance of Shalarth IDs.
21. As referred above, the Principal Seat in Hemant Baliram
Deore and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others (supra) held
that the show cause notice does not even whisper of any specific
charge or irregularity, much less point out any particular illegality or
fraud/misrepresentation alleged to have been committed while
granting approval to the petitioners-employees. At the foundation
itself that is show cause notice is vague, not specific, lack details
and/or unintelligible that is sufficient to hold that the noticee was not
given proper opportunity of hearing to meet the allegations indicated
in the show cause notice. The Principal Seat also observed that the
undue haste and no proper opportunity was granted to the
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
135/140
petitioners. It is also rightly observed that the incumbent Education
Officer as well as the then Education Officer, who are alleged to have
resorted to illegalities and irregularities were absent. In the present
matters also, the same procedure/ modus operandi adopted by the
Enquiry Officer. As seen from the GR dated 10/06/2022, in Clause
3.1, it is specifically directed to the Deputy Director of Education that
if it revealed that the earlier approval was granted irregularly or
illegally and it is prima facie opinion of the Deputy Director of
Education, in that circumstances, it is necessary to pass interim orders
along with reasons for coming to the prima facie opinion and
informing to the concerned that detail enquiry would be conducted.
Until completion of detail enquiry, the proposal for inclusion of new
name would remain in abeyance. It is specifically mentioned that if
detail enquiry has to be conducted, the concerned employee, the
concerned Management, educational institution so also the officer,
who have issued individual approval, were required to be noticed and
after hearing them, detailed reasoned order shall be passed. Thus, it is
clear that in absence of officer, who has issued the approval orders,
the enquiry is not as per the provisions or as per the GR and in
complete violation of GR. Moreover, no personal hearing was granted
to any of the petitioners as observed by the Principal Seat, as they
were directed to fill up the form on 22 points and no personal hearing
was granted. Even in some matters though petitioners were present,
they were shown as absent.
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
136/140
22. It is held by this judgment that the said purported show
cause notices issued to these petitioners cannot be sustained. The
final order passed by the enquiry officer is also held as faulty and
without application of mind. Assigning reasons for justifying the
conclusions is a sine quo non while passing the order which is lacking.
It is held that around 150 employees along with their Management
and headmasters on a single day collecting their written submissions
filed in prescribed format appended to the show cause notice cannot
be said to be an appropriate hearing. None of them was allowed to
express their view. It is observed by the Court that taking into
account that these petitioners-teachers were working for more than
10 to 15 years, there was no reason for the nominated authority to
resort such ‘undue haste’ procedure of conducting the hearings, which
clearly appears to be a farce or an eyewash. It is held that the hearing
is therefore, faulty and cannot be sustained. Moreover, the Principal
Seat also observed that even if there are some irregularities, those are
condonable and not attributable to the employees, who are serving
since last more than 10 to 15 years. There are no allegations of fraud
or misrepresentation in the show cause notice or any conclusion
against the petitioners-employees. Relying on the decision in
Shivanee Prasanna Deshpande v. State of Maharashtra and others ,
(Writ Petition No.10133 of 2016, decided on 01/08/2017), this Court
held that approvals granted cannot be interfered with and cannot be
set aside, save and except for the reason that a fraud has been
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
137/140
committed. Even if the Education Officer granted approval
erroneously, the same cannot be made ground to recall the approval
order and pass a cancellation order, unless a case of fraud,
misrepresentation, or suppression is established. The facts involved in
the present matters are identical, even show cause notices, the
hearing granted also revealed that the procedure adopted by the
enquiry officer on the basis of show cause notice, which is not specific
and which is vague, is unsustainable and therefore, the subsequent
actions based on the above referred purported show cause notices are
also unsustainable. We fully agreed with the judgment passed in
Hemant Baliram Deore (supra). Even if there are some instances
noticed by the Department, it does not give such power to take such
arbitrary action against all the employees. It is admitted fact that
Pavitra Portal though installed not functioning for many years. Even
there was huge pendency of proposals for Shalarth IDs. UDISE+ is
also not updated and many institutions requested for correction in the
said Portal. Thus, for the flaws in the system the teachers/staff cannot
be blamed specifically when they are having no role to play. We are
of the firm opinion that the office of respondents are not in order and
they are blaming the teachers/staff.
23. By way of additional affidavit, the petitioners claimed that
during the pendency of these petitions, the respondent-Deputy
Director of Education, Nagpur issued notices to the petitioners
directing them to be present for a hearing without specifying any
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
138/140
charges, allegations, grounds and consequences. No effective
opportunity of hearing was granted. Even some of the petitioners-
employees were marked as absent, though they were present for
hearing. It is further submitted that the respondent-Deputy Director
of Education, Nagpur vide their reply to the respective petition
informed the petitioners that their approvals have been cancelled.
These cancellation of approval orders were never supplied to the
petitioners and were simply annexed to the reply filed by them.
24. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on
the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.11748 of 2025
(Ravi Oraon v. State of Jharkhand and ors.), decided on 09/10/2025
in support of his contention that no employee can be dismissed or
penalized on a charge that was never mentioned in the show cause
notice. In the absence of any allegation of fraud against the teachers,
their salaries cannot be stopped. The petitioners placed reliance on
Radhey Shyam Yadav v. State of U.P. (supra). He also placed reliance
on Hemant Baliram Deore and another v. State of Maharashtra and
others (supra).
25. As such, the action on the part of the respondents of
stopping salary without order is patently illegal, erroneous, defeats
fundamental rights of the petitioners enshrined under Articles 14 and
21 of the Constitution of India. In fact, stoppage of salary without
order, without granting any opportunity of hearing amounts to
violation of principles of natural justice. It is pointed out by the
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
139/140
learned counsel for the petitioners that even after stoppage of salary,
the work is exacted by the Department and the teachers are
performing their duties, schools were running, moreover, the election
duties as well as census duties were directed to be performed to the
petitioners-employees in many matters, without giving remuneration
for it till February, 2026. ‘ Begar’ is defined under Article 23 of the
Constitution of India. The Government is prohibited from exacting
work without remuneration. This act of the respondents-Authorities is
nothing but practicing ‘Begar’ which is offence.
26. In view of above observations, the writ petitions are partly
allowed.
27. The impugned purported show cause notices and the
impugned cancellation orders pursuant to the purported show cause
notices are hereby quashed and set aside as are unsustainable.
28. If the Authorities desire to conduct a proper hearing in
these matters, they are at liberty to issue appropriate show cause
notices afresh, mentioning the specific ground in each case of the
petitioners-employees or Management, as being grounds only towards
indicating fraud or misrepresentation. Any issue touching an
irregularity can also be confronted, but only with the Management
and if it is noticed that the Management as well as the concerned
officer has committed irregularities or not followed the procedure
prescribed by the GR dated 10/06/2022, the respondents-Authorities
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
140/140
are at liberty to make loss good from the concerned officer or by
imposing penalty on the Management. However, unless a fraud or
misrepresentation is noticed and the petitioners-employees are held to
be parties to such acts, the Shalarth IDs, approval orders of the
petitioners-employees shall not be questioned as held in view of law
laid down in Mrs.Shivanee Prasanna Deshpande v. State of
Maharashtra and others (supra) and the same are restored.
29. The petitioners-employees are entitled to their salary, which
is stopped from March, 2025, as they have been working without a
break in service and respondents-Authorities to continue to pay the
same.
30. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms. No costs.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J) (SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J)
At this juncture, the learned Additional Government Pleader
has requested for keeping this judgment in abeyance for one week.
We do not see any ground to grant such relief as already the
petitioners-employees are without salary from one year.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J) (SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J)
Signed by: Mr. G.S. Khunte KHUNTE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 21/04/2026 18:27:35
