Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Order Date: 03 September 2026
Case Overview
- Petitioner: Mrs. Geeta Raju Singh, aged about 32‑38 years, Service occupation, resident of Navdurga Rahiwasi Seva Mandal, Bhim Nagar, Kurar Village, Malad (East), Mumbai‑400097.
- Respondents: 1. State of Maharashtra (Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai); 2. Education Inspector, Brihan Mumbai, Western Region (through Government Pleader); 3. Trustees of Shri Saraswati Shikshan Sanstha through Principal, Nutan Vidya Mandir High School, Kurar Village; 4. Kistod Rocky Rizorio, Managing Trustee/President of Saraswati Shikshan Sanstha.
- Interim Applications: IA No.16573/2022 and IA No.9448/2025 filed by the Trust in the same writ petition.
- Background: The petitioner joined the respondent No.4 institution (a 100% government‑aided secondary school) on 16 February 2012 as a Shikshan Sevak (teacher) with a B.A., B.Ed. qualification. After completing three years of service on 16 February 2015, she was not made permanent. The proposal for regularisation was allegedly sent by the petitioner herself on 21 December 2018, seven years after her appointment. The Education Officer (Respondent No.2) rejected the proposal on 11 February 2019, issuing a reasoned order citing five grounds:
1. Alleged submission of false documents.
2. No workload assigned to the petitioner.
3. Unexplained delay in proposal submission (2012‑2018).
4. Headmaster Mr. Nathu Bapu Gajare had not signed the proposal.
5. Existence of a backlog in reserved‑category appointments.
- Contentions: The petitioner argued that she worked continuously, that the delay was due to internal management disputes, and that the headmaster’s retirement in June 2018 caused the lapse. Respondent No.3 (the Trust) supported the petitioner, stating the school was fully aided and the government should bear back wages. Respondent No.4 provided affidavits showing the advertisement dated 14 February 2012, the headmaster’s submission of the proposal on 7 December 2018 by his successor, and that the petitioner had indeed performed duties.
- Legal Reasoning: The Court examined each of the five reasons:
- No evidence of false documents; both Respondents 3 and 4 supported the petitioner.
- Documentary proof showed the petitioner had workload; the Education Officer’s finding was deemed perverse.
- The delay was attributed to a management dispute, not the petitioner’s fault; such delay cannot justify rejection.
- The headmaster’s lack of signature was explained by his voluntary retirement; the proposal was later resubmitted by the new headmaster.
- Citing Namita Narayan Jha v. Education Officer (2014), the Court held that a backlog in reserved categories cannot be a ground to deny approval for an open‑category candidate.
- Conclusion: None of the Education Officer’s reasons were sustainable; the order was perverse and contrary to the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 and the MEPS Act.
Final Outcome
- The writ petition (No. 2371 of 2020) is allowed.
- The impugned order dated 11 February 2019 is quashed and set aside.
- The State of Maharashtra is directed to grant approval to the petitioner’s appointment with effect from 16 February 2012.
- The petitioner’s salary and back wages are to be paid within eight weeks of this order.
- The writ petition is disposed of, and the connected interim applications (16573/2022 and 9448/2025) stand disposed of.
Topics: Appointment Approval, Back Wages, Education Employment