Manthana Ramdas Thakur vs State of Maharashtra - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 5059

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 5059

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G. S. Kulkarni, Neela Gokhale, JJ
Manthana Ramdas Thakur – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 112 OF 2025

Important Points

Prior permission from the Education Officer under Section 5(1) of the MEPS Act and strict adherence to Rule 9(2-A) regarding wide-circulation advertisements are mandatory for valid appointments in aided private schools; non-compliance and inordinate delay in seeking approval render such appointments illegal.

Subject

Education Law - Teacher Recruitment

Act Referred

Constitution of India: Art.226, Art.16
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977: S.5
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981: R.8, R.9, R.9(2-A), R.9(2-B), R.9(2-C), R.9(2-D)

Headnote

(A) Recruitment in Private Schools - Mandatory Compliance - Prior permission from the Education Officer under Section 5(1) of the MEPS Act before issuing an advertisement for recruitment is mandatory and not a mere formality; failure to obtain such permission renders the appointment illegal. (Para 16)

(B) Advertisement Process - Rule 9(2-A) of MEPS Rules - The requirement to publish vacancies in local newspapers with wide circulation is mandatory to ensure equal opportunity under Article 16 of the Constitution; publication in unknown or low-circulation newspapers is insufficient and constitutes an "eye-wash". (Para 17, 18, 19)

(C) Administrative Delay - Submission of Approval Proposal - An inordinate delay in submitting a proposal for approval of appointment (e.g., five years) is a significant lapse that cannot be overlooked by the court and justifies the rejection of the proposal. (Para 17, 21)

Issues: Whether the appointment of a Shikshan Sevak without prior NOC and with a delayed approval proposal is valid under the MEPS Act and Rules.

Result: Petition rejected.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vinayak R. Kumbhar, Rajendra B. Khaire, Ashwini N. Bandiwadekar
For the Respondents: Pooja M.J. Deshpande

CNR No : HCBM010614992024

904.WP112_2025.DOC Vidya Amin

JUDGMENT (Per G. S. Kulkarni, J.)

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for the following substantive reliefs:

“a) Rule Nisi be issued and records and proceedings be called for.

b) By a suitable writ, order or direction, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 22.8.2024, along with the impugned order dated 23.8.2023, passed by respondent no. 2 and accordingly the respondent no. 2 may be directed to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner no. 1 as a Full Time Shikshan Sevak in the aided Higher Secondary School of petitioner no.2 Management from 17.6.2017 to 16.6.2020, and to release the grant-in-aid for payment of monthly honorarium to the petitioner no. 1 for the said period of 3 years.

c) By a suitable writ, order or direction, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 to grant permission to include the name of petitioner no. 1 in Shalartha Pranali and to allot her the Shalartha I.D. as a Full Tie Shikshan Sevak in the aided Higher Secondary School of the petitioner no. 2 Management w.e.f. 17.6.2017, with all consequential benefits.

d) By a suitable writ, order or direction, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct respondent no. 2 to grant further approval to the petitioner no. 1 as a Full Time Assistant Teacher at the aided Higher Secondary School of the petitioner no.2 Management w.e.f. 17.6.2020, and to release the grant- in-aid for payment of monthly salary to the petitioner no. 1 in pay scale, together with arrears from 17.6.2020 onwards.”

2. Thus, as seen from the prayers, the proposal as forwarded by petitioner no. 2 – P.P. Khar-Patil Education Society in which petitioner no. 1 is appointed has been rejected by respondent no. 2- the Deputy Director of Education on the ground that the appointment of petitioner no. 1 to the aided school was made without compliance of the several statutory mandates as prescribed under the MEPS Act and MEPS Rules.

3. The facts lie in a narrow compass: The petitioner contends that although the petitioner belongs to the OBC category, she was possessing the necessary qualifications for appointment to the post of Shikshan Sevak. She has applied as an open category candidate for appointment as a Shikshan Sevak in pursuance of an advertisement which was issued by petitioner no. 2 in the local newspaper dated 29 May, 2017. It is the petitioner’s case that the said advertisement was issued as mandated by law, however, copy of only one newspaper cutting of the advertisement issued in “Daily Om Samachar” is annexed. Whether the said newspaper was a newspaper of wide circulation, cannot be ascertained in the said petition, except for a fact that the petitioner to that effect obtained a certificate from the owners of the said newspaper that the said newspaper has wide circulation. This itself reflects something quite unusual.

4. Be that as it may, it appears that there was a transfer of the school in question in favour of petitioner no. 2-Management sometime in May 2017 from the previous management, namely, one Konkan Education Society, Alibag, Taluka Alibag, District Raigad. The name of petitioner no. 2-School hence underwent a change as Kalusheth Dhaku Khar-Patil Higher Secondary School at Chirner, Taluka Uran, District Raigad. Accordingly, it is stated that the petitioner no. 2 starting running the said school from May, 2017. It is the only school run by petitioner no. 2. It is the petitioner’s case that at the time of transfer, a sanctioned post of Shikshan Sevak was lying vacant and for such reason, the said advertisement was issued on 29 May, 2017 inviting applications from the eligible candidates. It is the petitioner’s case that the petitioner had participated in an interview, which was held by the Interview Committee of three members and accordingly, the petitioner was selected as a successful candidat