2026:BHC-AS:10711 Amberkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2296 OF 2022 Naikare Kavita Raghunath .. Petitioner Versus Janata Shikshan Sanstha & Ors. .. Respondents ....................

 Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh a/w. Mr. Bhusham G. Deshmukh, Mr.

Aryan M. Deshmukh, Mr. Aniket Kanawade and Mr. Vaibhav Thorve, Mr. Irvin D'souza and Ms. Karishma Shinde, Advocates for Petitioners.

 Ms. Shraddha Pawar, Advocate i/by Mr. Dilip Bodake for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

 Ms. Vaishali Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent No.3 – State.

...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : MARCH 5, 2026 P. C . :

1. Heard Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for Petitioners; Ms. Pawar, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Ms.

Nimbalkar, learned AGP for Respondent No. 3 - State.

2. By consent of both the learned Advocates, Petition is heard finally.

3. Facts in the present case relevant for adjudication of the Petition are under:-

3.1. Petitioner has educational qualification of M.A. (English), M.A. (Politics), First Class and B.Ed. which is essential for teaching procession. Responding to an advertisement by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 16.09.2011 Petitioner was appointed as 'Shikshan Sevak' by appointment order issued by Respondent No. 1 - Educational Institution. However order was not given to her but admittedly Petitioner continued to teach English and was working as 'Shikshan Sevak' since then by virtue of her appointment.

3.2. On 05.01.2012 School Committee passed a resolution appointing Petitioner to teach English subject in the school run by Respondent No. 1. On 24.11.2012 appointment order was issued w.e.f. 15.06.2012 appointing Petitioner to teach English on an aided post. However since the appointment order was issued on and from 15.06.2012, Petitioner protested leading to issuance of fresh appointment order dated 24.11.2012 for the period from 16.09.2011 to 30.04.2012. These appointment orders are appended at page Nos. 26 and 28 of the Petition respectively. Thereafter Respondent No. 1 prepared a proposal dated 25.09.2012 and sent it for approval to the Education Officer. Since it was a consolidated proposal, Director of Education passed order directing Respondent No. 1 to file a separate proposal insofar as Petitioner was concerned. This order of Director of Education is appended at page Nos. 73-75 of the Petition.

3.3. In view of above Respondent No. 1 prepared a second proposal on 08.10.2023 in respect of Petitioner's appointment and sent it for approval to the Director of Education. Appended to the said proposal was the staffing pattern of the School which was finalized on 25.09.2013 for the year 2013-14 and for the year 2014-15 showing the student strength ratio insofar the English subject is concerned. Since approval did not come and the said proposal lapsed, Respondent No. 1 prepared a third proposal dated 09.11.2015 and sent it for approval to the Dy. Director of Education. Once again the proposal sent in 2015 remained to be approved and lapsed. In view of Petitioner having continued working with Respondent No. 1, Respondent No. 1 thereafter sent a fourth proposal. Principal of Junior College in which Petitioner was employed sent a proposal on 25.04.2017 to the General Secretary of Respondent No. 1 on 25.04.2017. Thereafter since there was a change in the management and change of Governing Council of Respondent No. 1's Trust, the newly appointed General Secretary issued two notices dated 08.08.2016 and 01.05.2017 terminating the services of all employees who were appointed by the Trust after 02.05.2012.

3.4. On 05.05.2017 Respondent No. 2 issued termination order to Petitioner stating that appointment of Petitioner was made after 02.05.2012 and since it was contrary to the Government Resolution issuing ban on appointment which was issued and prevailing at the then time, her services stood terminated. Being aggrieved, Petitioner filed Statutory Appeal bearing Appeal No. 12 of 2017 before