Priti Ashish Rewatkar And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...

Bombay High Court21 April 2026M. S. Jawalkar

Neutral2026:BHC-NAG:6138

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where teaching and non-teaching staff working in private aided schools have been lawfully appointed and their appointments duly approved by education authorities, and they have been receiving salary through the grant-in-aid system (Shalarth Portal) for years without objection, subsequent cancellation of their approval orders and stoppage of salary without a specific show cause notice indicating particular grounds of fraud or misrepresentation, without proper opportunity of hearing, and without reasoned orders, is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and constitutes a breach of natural justice. Approval orders granted to such lawfully appointed employees cannot be cancelled merely on the ground of procedural irregularities in the appointment process unless there is clear evidence that the employee himself or herself was party to or complicit in fraud or misrepresentation; procedural defects in the appointment, such as non-compliance with roster reservation, missing TET qualification, or prior permissions, which are attributable to the school management and not to the employee, do not justify cancellation of the employee's approval or stoppage of salary. Where an employee has rendered service for more than a decade without any objection being raised during annual school inspections, and where the approval has been in force and salary paid regularly for years, the sudden stopping of salary after such length of service, without proper inquiry observing principles of natural justice, constitutes deprivation of livelihood in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and constitutes begar under Article 23 of the Constitution when the employee is required to continue work without remuneration. A show cause notice issued for cancellation of approval orders must specify the particular grounds of alleged irregularity or fraud applicable to each employee and must afford a genuine opportunity of personal hearing; where a show cause notice is vague, omnibus, lacking specific details, and does not distinguish between the alleged faults of the management and those of the employee, it fails to provide adequate opportunity to meet the allegations and vitiates any subsequent order based upon it. Where a hearing is conducted in a perfunctory manner—such as by requiring 150 employees to submit written replies in questionnaire format on a single day without individual oral hearing or opportunity to address the authority—the hearing cannot be characterized as a fair or adequate opportunity to respond to charges and the procedure is unsustainable. Stoppage of salary without any formal order of cancellation or termination, and without notice to the employee, is itself illegal and violates the principles of natural justice regardless of whether a subsequent cancellation order is issued.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 90/140

appropriate 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 91/140

validity 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 92/140

appointment, 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

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 teacher

KHUNTE 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 an

KHUNTE WP-7441.25+25-J.odt 99/140

employee 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 order

KHUNTE WP-7441.25+25-J.odt 101/140

to 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 their

KHUNTE WP-7441.25+25-J.odt 104/140

incapacity 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 the

KHUNTE WP-7441.25+25-J.odt 105/140

approval 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 122/140

against 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 123/140

by 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 124/140

institution 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 125/140

loss 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 126/140

the 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 clearly

KHUNTE WP-7441.25+25-J.odt 131/140

appears 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

Connected matters

Decided by the same order

Shrikant Ganpatrao Pawar And Others vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, ...21 April 2026

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free