IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the Education Officer must adjust the sanctioned teaching staff based on actual student enrollment in accordance with the RCE Act and relevant Government Resolutions, ensuring compliance with the mandated pupil-teacher ratios.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Advocates for the parties finally, by consent.

2. By invoking the constitutional powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of writ directing respondent No.2 - Education Officer to modify the sanctioned strength of teaching staff in view of the Government Resolution dtd. 28/8/2015 and to maintain it under pupil-teacher ratio as per the provisions under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the "RCE Act").

3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. V. S. Panpatte for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr. A. R. Kale for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and learned Advocate Mr. U. B. Bondar for respondent No.2.

4. The petitioner No.1 is a Society and petitioner No.2 is the Primary School run by petitioner No.1. The classes from 1st to 5th standard are conducted in the said school and since June, 2014, petitioner No.2 is receiving 100% grant-in-aid. Respondent No.2 had sanctioned the teaching staff to petitioner No.2 - School, but it has not been modified since 2012-2013 to 2016-2017. In fact, the petitioners are recognized as religious linguistic minority institution from the year 2013-2014 and the certificate to that effect has been granted by the competent authority on 29/11/2013. There was an institution by name Chakradhar Shikshan Sanstha, Waka, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded prior to 1990. The said institution applied to the Government for shifting petitioner No.2 - School from Nandigram Society, Nanded to Sarola Road, Ausa, Dist. Latur. The Government gave permission on 3/8/2012 for such shifting. Respondent No.2 by letter dtd. 7/8/2012 communicated the said decision. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 - Society applied for handing over petitioner No.2 - School to it and respondent No.1- State by order dtd. 1/11/2013 granted the said permission. Communication to that effect has been received on 21/11/2013. Respondent No.2 had also by order dtd. 4/11/2016 granted permission to run 5th standard class in Petitioner No.2 - School from the academic year 2014-2015. The petitioner No.1 - Society by following due procedure obtained fresh permission vide order dtd. 25/8/2016 as per Sec. 18 of the RCE Act to run petitioner No.2 - School. The strength of the students went on increasing year after year. The petitioner is relying upon the provisions of Sec. 25(1) read with Schedule of the RCE Act as well as Government Resolution dtd. 28/8/2015 as to what should be the strength of teaching staff. The chart thereof has been given. It is then stated that since the said sanction strength has not been modified, it should be modified and the salary of the teaching staff of petitioner No.2 - School be released for the year 2014-2015 to 2016-2017.

5. Affidavit-in-reply has been given by the Director of Education (Primary) Shri. Dattatray Govind Jagtap for the respondents. Most of the facts are undisputed and the fact that the strength of the students in Petitioner No.2 - School is increasing is also not disputed. It is then contended that the provisions of Government Resolution dtd. 28/8/2015 cannot be given retrospective effect. Moreover, the petitioner is claiming additional posts collectively for 1st to 7th standard and when the further divisions for 6th to 8th standard are on self finance basis from the academic year 2015- 2016, those cannot be granted as prayed. The additional division for class-V was sanctioned to the petitioner institute due to natural growth. It is then stated that respondent No.2 by order dtd. 16/3/2018 has also sanctioned additional two posts for primary Sec. on non grant basis with effect from 2013-2014. It is also stated that the additional post should be filled only after ascertaining whether there are any surplus teachers available and by taking no objection for filling up of the posts. It is also stated that the State of Maharashtra, while considering the p