Bombay High Court Orders Approval and Back Wages for Teacher Appointed in 2012; Holds Management Delay and Reserved-Category Backlog Cannot Defeat Open-Category Appointment
Bombay High Court Quashes Education Officer’s Rejection of Teacher’s Appointment; Finds Allegations of False Documents and Absence of Workload Unsupported and Perverse
Facts
Geeta Raju Singh filed Writ Petition No. 2371 of 2020 challenging the Education Inspector’s order dated 11 February 2019, which rejected approval of her appointment as a teacher. She sought approval with effect from 16 February 2012 and, by amendment, back wages from 16 February 2015.
The petitioner was a B.A., B.Ed. qualified teacher who joined the respondent institution as a Shikshan Sevak on 16 February 2012. According to her, she was appointed after following due process and continuously worked as a teacher. After completing three years, however, she was not made permanent with the requisite approval.
The school was a 100% Government-aided secondary school. An advertisement for the teacher’s post had been published on 14 February 2012, applications were received, and the petitioner was selected and appointed. After completing three years as Shikshan Sevak, the school appointed her on a regular basis as an Assistant Teacher.
The difficulty arose because of internal disputes within the management. A proposal dated 23 April 2018 for approval of the petitioner’s appointment as Assistant Teacher had apparently not been forwarded by the then Headmaster, Nathu Bapu Gajare. After a new Headmaster, Badrinath Hruday Tiwari, assumed charge, he discovered the pending proposal and forwarded it to the Education Officer in December 2018.
The Education Officer nevertheless rejected approval on five grounds: alleged creation of false documents; absence of workload; unexplained delay in forwarding the proposal; denial by the former Headmaster that he signed the proposal; and failure to clear the reserved-category backlog before appointing the petitioner from the open category.
Issues
The Court considered whether:
- the Education Officer was justified in rejecting approval of the petitioner’s appointment;
- the appointment documents were false or fabricated;
- there was sufficient workload for her appointment;
- the petitioner could be penalised because the management forwarded her approval proposal belatedly;
- the former Headmaster’s alleged denial of his signature justified rejection; and
- an existing reserved-category backlog could legally be used to deny approval to a teacher appointed in the open category.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that she had been validly appointed as Shikshan Sevak on 16 February 2012 after following the prescribed selection process and possessed the requisite B.A., B.Ed. qualification.
She had continuously worked from the date of appointment and completed the three-year Shikshan Sevak period on 16 February 2015.
Her case was that the delay in submitting the approval proposal was attributable entirely to the school management and its internal disputes. She had repeatedly requested the Principal to forward the proposal and ultimately took steps herself when approval was not forthcoming.
She also pointed out that two teachers appointed after her had received approval, while her approval alone was withheld.
Respondents’ Arguments
The Education Officer defended the rejection as a reasoned order.
The State emphasized that the proposal had been forwarded almost seven years after the petitioner’s alleged appointment. It further contended that there was a backlog of reserved-category posts and that appointing an open-category candidate despite such backlog violated the applicable roster and Rule 8(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.
It was also contended that neither the management nor the petitioner had satisfactorily produced the workload details for 2012–2018.
Significantly, however, the school management itself supported the petitioner. It clarified that an earlier statement suggesting that she had not been given work was an inadvertent mistake and confirmed that she had continuously worked in the school. The management also undertook to fill the reserved-category backlog as vacancies arose.
Analysis of the Law
1. Allegation of False Documents Was Unsupported
The High Court found nothing on record establishing that false documents had been submitted.
Both relevant management respondents supported the petitioner’s case. The Education Officer’s conclusion that false documents had been created was therefore held to be devoid of reasons and perverse.
2. Finding of No Workload Was Also Perverse
The Court similarly rejected the Education Officer’s conclusion that no workload was available.
The petitioner and management had produced voluminous documents demonstrating workload. The Education Officer appeared to have relied upon one stray statement by the management, which was immediately clarified as an inadvertent mistake.
The finding therefore had no sustainable evidentiary foundation.
3. Teacher Cannot Be Blamed for Management’s Delay
This was one of the judgment’s important findings.
The management had explained why the proposal was submitted late. The Court held expressly that:
“the employee of the school is not to be blamed for late submission of the proposal.”
The Court recognized that there was a management dispute and held that mere belated submission by the school authorities could not become a ground for rejecting the teacher’s approval.
4. Former Headmaster’s Signature Dispute Was Insufficient
The Court noted that an appointment letter dated 16 February 2012 was on record and was supported by a management resolution.
Given the internal management dispute and the circumstances surrounding the former Headmaster’s voluntary retirement, the Court considered it inappropriate to rely upon his alleged statement denying his signature.
More importantly, the fact that the petitioner’s proposal was ultimately forwarded by the new Headmaster was undisputed.
5. Reserved-Category Backlog Cannot Defeat Open-Category Approval
On this issue, the High Court held that the legal position was no longer res integra.
It relied upon Namita Narayan Jha v. Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Gondia & Ors., 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 1605, which held that the mere existence of a reserved-category backlog cannot constitute a valid ground to deny approval to a candidate appointed in the open category.
Precedent Analysis
Namita Narayan Jha v. Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Gondia & Ors., 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 1605
This was the principal and apparently only precedent specifically relied upon by the Court.
The judgment establishes that an Education Authority cannot reject approval of an otherwise valid open-category appointment merely because the institution has an unfilled backlog in reserved-category posts.
The Court treated this principle as settled and directly applied it to reject the Education Officer’s fifth ground.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court found that the entire problem had essentially arisen from a dispute within the management of the Trust.
The petitioner was qualified, joined as Shikshan Sevak on 16 February 2012 and completed three years on 16 February 2015. The management provided an explanation for the delay in forwarding the proposal.
The Court then independently examined all five grounds relied upon by the Education Officer and found that none could survive judicial scrutiny.
There was no proof of fabricated documents; workload existed; the delay was attributable to management rather than the employee; the Headmaster-signature objection was undermined by contemporaneous appointment records and subsequent forwarding of the proposal; and reserved-category backlog was legally insufficient to reject an open-category appointment.
The Court therefore held that the Education Officer’s order was not in consonance with the MEPS Act and Rules and required to be quashed.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Education Officer’s order dated 11 February 2019.
The State was directed to:
- forthwith approve Geeta Raju Singh’s appointment with effect from 16 February 2012; and
- pay her salary along with backlog wages within eight weeks.
The connected Interim Applications were also disposed of.
The judgment therefore reinforces an important service-law principle: a teacher cannot be deprived of approval because the school management delayed forwarding the proposal, particularly where the appointment and actual service are otherwise established.
Case Details
Case: Mrs. Geeta Raju Singh v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:36246-DB
Court: Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 2371 of 2020 with Interim Application Nos. 16573 of 2022 and 9448 of 2025
Bench: Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice Sandesh D. Patil
Reserved on: 13 August 2026
Pronounced on: 3 September 2026
Result: Petition allowed; rejection of approval quashed; State directed to grant approval from 16 February 2012 and pay salary with backlog wages within eight weeks
