The Bombay High Court has set aside an order refusing approval to the appointment of a teacher at a government-aided school, holding that the reasons relied upon by the Education Officer were not supported by the record.
A Division Bench of Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice Sandesh D. Patil allowed the writ petition filed by Mrs. Geeta Raju Singh and directed the State to approve her appointment with effect from February 16, 2012. The Court also ordered payment of her salary along with backlog wages within eight weeks.
Background of the Case
Geeta Raju Singh, who was qualified as a B.A., B.Ed., joined the institution as a Shikshan Sevak on February 16, 2012. She continued working at the school and completed three years of service in February 2015.
According to the petition, approval of her appointment was not granted despite her continued service. The proposal was eventually submitted to the Education Inspector on December 21, 2018.
The Education Officer rejected the proposal in an order dated February 11, 2019. Among other reasons, the authority questioned whether she had actually been appointed in 2012, found that there was no workload, raised the delay in submitting the proposal, questioned the Headmaster's signature and referred to a backlog in reserved-category appointments.
Bombay High Court’s Observations
The Bench found that the record did not support several of these findings. On the allegation that false documents had been submitted, the Court noted that there was nothing on record establishing this. The management itself had supported the teacher's case.
On workload, the Court observed that the petitioner and the management had produced substantial material showing that work was available. The Bench said the Education Officer appeared to have relied on an isolated statement which the management had subsequently clarified as an inadvertent mistake.
The Court also held that the teacher could not be blamed for the delayed submission of the approval proposal when the delay arose from disputes within the management.
“In any event, the employee of the school is not to be blamed for late submission of the proposal.”
On the reserved-category backlog, the Bench relied on its earlier decision in Namita Narayan Jha v. Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Gondia & Ors., holding that the existence of such backlog could not by itself justify denying approval to a candidate appointed in the open category.
Decision
The High Court concluded that none of the five reasons given for rejecting the approval could be sustained.
It quashed and set aside the February 11, 2019 order, directed the State to approve Singh’s appointment retrospectively from February 16, 2012, and ordered payment of her salary along with backlog wages within eight weeks.
The connected interim applications were also disposed of.
Case Details:
Case Title: Mrs. Geeta Raju Singh v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 2371 of 2020
Judges: Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice Sandesh D. Patil
Decision Date: September 3, 2026
