Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Order Date: 03 September 2026 (pronounced); Reserved on 13 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – Mrs. Geeta Raju Singh (aged ~32, Service, resident of Navdurga Rahiwasi Seva Mandal, Kurar Village, Malad East, Mumbai). Respondents – 1) State of Maharashtra (Secretary, Education Department), 2) Education Inspector, Brihan Mumbai (Western Region), 3) Trustees of Shri Saraswati Shikshan Sanstha through Principal Nutan Vidya Mandir High School, 4) Kistod Rocky Rizorio (Managing Trustee/President of the Trust). Additional intervenor – Mr. Mahendra Jairam Sharma (Secretary, Shri Saraswati Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ Petition (No. 2371 of 2020) seeking quashing of the Education Officer’s order dated 11 Feb 2019 rejecting approval of the petitioner’s appointment and seeking back wages from 16 Feb 2015, as well as directions for approval of appointment effective 16 Feb 2012.
  • Background: The petitioner joined the school (a 100 % government‑aided secondary school managed by the Trust) on 16 Feb 2012 as Shikshan Sevak with B.A. B.Ed. qualification. After completing three years of service on 16 Feb 2015, she was not made permanent. The proposal for regularisation was allegedly sent by the petitioner herself on 21 Dec 2018. Two other teachers were regularised earlier; the petitioner’s proposal was delayed due to internal disputes within the Trust.
  • Impugned Order Reasons (as stated by Education Officer, Respondent 2):

1. Alleged false documents submitted for the petitioner’s appointment.

2. No workload assigned to the petitioner.

3. Unexplained delay in submitting the proposal (2012‑2018).

4. Headmaster Mr. Nathu Bapu Gajare allegedly did not sign the proposal.

5. Backlog of appointments in reserved categories allegedly justified rejection.

  • Responses:
  • Respondent 3 (Trust) argued the school is fully government‑aided; back wages are a government liability, and it supported the petitioner’s claim.
  • Respondent 4 (Trust management) provided affidavit showing advertisement on 14 Feb 2012, appointment of petitioner, subsequent headmaster change, and that the pending proposal was finally submitted on 7 Dec 2018 by new Headmaster Mr. Badrinath Hruday Tiwari.
  • The petitioner submitted rejoinder affidavits and voluminous documents proving continuous work and workload.
  • Court’s Analysis:
  • Found no evidence of false documents; both Respondents 3 and 4 supported petitioner.
  • Rejected the finding of no workload as unsupported; petitioner and Respondents 3/4 produced ample evidence.
  • Held that internal management dispute cannot be blamed on the employee for delayed proposal submission.
  • Noted that the headmaster’s alleged non‑signature was explained by his retirement and subsequent submission by his successor.
  • Cited Namita Narayan Jha v. Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Gondla (2014 SCC OnLine Bom 1605) that a backlog in reserved categories cannot be a ground to deny approval for an open‑category candidate.

Final Outcome

  • The Court allowed Writ Petition No. 2371 of 2020.
  • Quashed and set aside the Education Officer’s order dated 11 Feb 2019.
  • Directed the State of Maharashtra to approve the petitioner’s appointment with effect from 16 Feb 2012.
  • Ordered payment of the petitioner’s salary along with backlog wages within eight weeks of this order.
  • Disposed of the writ petition and, consequently, the connected Interim Applications No. 16573 of 2022 and No. 9448 of 2025.

Topics: Appointment Approval, Back Wages, Education Law