Court’s decision
The Bombay High Court issued a series of mandatory directions compelling the concerned educational authorities to immediately include the Petitioner’s name in the Shalarth System and grant her Shalarth Identity as a part-time Shikshan Sevak. The Court held that the designated authorities have no discretion to withhold Shalarth Identity once approval is granted, observing that “inaction despite an approved proposal is impermissible” and that the concerned officials cannot “sit tight over the proposal” submitted by the School Management and Deputy Director of Education.
The Court extensively relied on its earlier ruling in Saniya Shahrukh Shaikh, reaffirming that once the competent authority approves an employee’s appointment, the Board Chairman is duty-bound to process and grant Shalarth Identity immediately. The Court directed that the Petitioner’s name be included in the Shalarth System within six weeks and further directed that the Petitioner’s salary and honorarium arrears from 21 September 2021 to 14 March 2023 be released within four weeks of issuance of the Shalarth Identity.
This decision reinforces the judicial position that withholding Shalarth Identity after approval violates administrative duties and unfairly deprives employees of legitimate remuneration.
Facts
The Petitioner was appointed as a part-time Shikshan Sevak in September 2021 by the School Management after following due procedure. The Deputy Director of Education granted formal approval to her appointment in October 2022. Later, after policy changes and in light of an official communication issued in 2017, the Petitioner was appointed as a full-time Shikshan Sevak in March 2023. This appointment was also approved by the Deputy Director of Education in May 2023.
Following these approvals, the School Management and Deputy Director of Education submitted multiple proposals to the Board Chairman seeking grant of Shalarth Identity to the Petitioner. Between August and October 2023, proposals were filed; in December 2023, queries were raised and subsequently complied with by December 2024. Despite this compliance, the Board Chairman failed to process the request or grant the Petitioner access to Shalarth. Repeated reminders sent in July 2025 also went unanswered, prompting the Petitioner to approach the High Court.
Issues
The core issues before the Court were:
- Whether the Board Chairman could withhold Shalarth Identity despite full approvals granted by the competent authority.
- Whether seeking clarifications allows indefinite delay in processing Shalarth proposals.
- Whether the Shalarth authority has the jurisdiction to question the validity of an approval granted by the Deputy Director of Education.
- Whether the Petitioner was entitled to salary and honorarium arrears from the date of initial appointment.
Petitioner’s arguments
The Petitioner argued that the Board Chairman’s prolonged inaction violated the established legal framework governing Shalarth administration. It was submitted that once approval is granted by the competent authority, the Board Chairman has a mandatory duty to ensure inclusion of the employee’s name in the Shalarth System. The Petitioner contended that the deficiencies cited by the Board Chairman had already been addressed and that continued inaction amounted to arbitrary withholding of accrued rights.
The Petitioner further submitted that questioning the validity of the approval was beyond the jurisdiction of the Board Chairman. Relying on past judgments, counsel argued that the Shalarth authority cannot sit in appeal over an approval issued by the Deputy Director of Education. It was asserted that the Petitioner was being unfairly deprived of her salary despite having a legally valid appointment and required approvals.
Respondent’s arguments
The Respondent School supported the Petitioner’s case, acknowledging that all deficiencies had been resolved. The Assistant Government Pleader representing the State did not dispute the legal position and agreed that the matter was governed by well-settled law. The State requested that appropriate directions be issued.
No argument was advanced to justify the Board Chairman’s inaction, nor was any explanation offered for the persistent failure to process the proposals. The Respondent-State effectively conceded that the relevant legal principles applied directly and that the Petitioner’s inclusion in the Shalarth System was warranted.
Analysis of the law
The Court reaffirmed that Shalarth is an administrative mechanism introduced by the State to streamline the payment of salaries to employees of private schools and junior colleges. Inclusion in Shalarth is not discretionary; it is consequential to approval of appointment. The Court emphasised that approval by the Deputy Director of Education is a condition precedent for inclusion in Shalarth, and once approval is granted, the Board Chairman’s role is administrative rather than adjudicatory.
Relying heavily on statutory interpretation and prior rulings, the Court held that the Board Chairman cannot question the approval or delay implementation, except for seeking clarification on incomplete data. Critically, the Court reaffirmed that while approvals may be reviewed under exceptional circumstances such as fraud, the Shalarth authority cannot independently reopen the merits of an approved appointment.
Precedent analysis
The Court relied on its recent judgment in Saniya Shahrukh Shaikh, where it held that once approval is granted, the Shalarth authority is “under mandate to issue Shalarth Identity” and cannot withhold or delay inclusion in the system. That judgment clarified three important principles:
- The ban on appointments does not apply to minority institutions.
- The Deputy Director of Education cannot refuse or delay inclusion once approval exists.
- The Shalarth authority does not sit in appeal over approvals granted by the Education Officer.
These principles were incorporated and reiterated in the present case to hold that the Board Chairman acted outside the permissible limits of administrative authority.
Court’s reasoning
The Court found that all jurisdictional requirements for inclusion in the Shalarth System were fulfilled by the Petitioner. It held that approvals had been granted, proposals had been duly submitted, and all deficiencies previously raised were rectified. Despite this, the Board Chairman had failed to act, in clear violation of binding judicial principles.
The Court reasoned that the delay in granting Shalarth Identity had directly affected the Petitioner’s right to receive salary, thereby causing undue hardship. It reiterated that Shalarth authorities cannot question approvals nor withhold identity cards on grounds unrelated to data verification. Since approval to appointment carries with it a mandatory obligation for Shalarth registration, the Court found the inaction unlawful.
Conclusion
The High Court concluded that the Petitioner had established a clear entitlement to inclusion in the Shalarth System. Since all prerequisites—appointment, approval, proposal submission, and compliance—stood satisfied, the Court held that the Board Chairman’s failure to process the proposal was unjustified.
The Court allowed the writ petition, directed inclusion of the Petitioner’s name in the Shalarth System within six weeks, and ordered release of salary arrears from 21 September 2021 to 14 March 2023 within four weeks thereafter. The Court disposed of the petition while keeping future contentions open.
Implications
This judgment strengthens the legal protections afforded to teaching staff in private institutions, ensuring that administrative authorities cannot delay or obstruct salary processing merely by withholding Shalarth Identity. It establishes that approvals must translate into timely Shalarth activation and that failure to act will be treated as unlawful inaction. The ruling will serve as an important precedent for similarly placed educators across Maharashtra who face delays in salary due to bureaucratic inaction.
