Progeressive Education Society And Ors. vs Sou. Madhavi B. Joshi And Ors.

CNR No : HCBM010194662002

WP-1881-2002 J C2.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 1881 OF 2002
1.Progressive Education Society
A Society registered under Societies Registration
Act and B.P. TACT and having its registered
address at W.I.E. Complex, Shivajinagar, Pune,
411 005, represented by the chairman.
NAVNATH
SITARAM
WAGHMARE
Digitally signed by
NAVNATH
SITARAM
WAGHMARE
Date: 2026.11.05
18:20:32 +0530
2. P.E. Society's Prathmic Vidya Mandir,
Ganesh Khind, Pune 411 053
Through its Headmistress.
...Petitioners
Versus
1. Madhavi B. Joshi
Age: 52 Years, Occ.: Service
R/at 1213, Kasba Peth, Pune 411 011.
2.The Dy. Director of Education,
Pune Division, Central Bldg., Pune 411 001.
3.The Dy. Education Officer,
Pune District Pune.
4.School/ Committee PMC Building
Shivajinagar, Pune.
...Respondents
5.The State of Maharashtra

Mr. Shirish Pitre a/w Mr. Amol Ghuge, Mr. Gourav Shahane & Mr.
Veerdhaval Deshmukh for the Petitioners.
Mr. Sanjeev J. Rairkar for Respondent No.1.
Ms. M.S. Srivastav, AGP, for the Respondent/State.

CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
th
DATE : 05 NOVEMBER, 2026
Navnath Waghmare 1
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 18:36:43

WP-1881-2002 J C2.doc
JUDGMENT. :
1. The Petitioner No.1 is an educational institute running
Petitioner No.2- school at Pune. Respondent No.1 is a teacher involved.
The dispute is arising out of termination of Respondent No.1.
2. The Petitioners, invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court, are
challenging judgment and order dated 24.01.2000 passed by Presiding
Officer, School Tribunal, Pune region, Pune (‘the Tribunal’ for short) in
Appeal No. 64 of 1998. By the said impunged order, appeal filed by
Respondent No.1 teacher is allowed, thereby setting aside order of
termination dated 14.02.1998 and directing the Petitioners to reinstate
Respondent No.1 w.e.f. 01.03.1998 with full back-wages. A
recommendation is made to the Respondent/State that back-wages be
paid to Respondent No. 1 and be deducted from the grant due and
payable to Petitioner/Management.
BACKGROUND
3. The Respondent No. 1 filed the said appeal under Section 9 of
the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules, 1981 made thereunder (the said Act
and the said Rules for short), contending inter alia as under :
3.1. That she is qualified as S.S.C., T.D. (Teachers Diploma) and D.Ed
(Private) from Dnyanvardhini Educational Society, Pune. That
Petitioner/Management by order dated 01.07.1992 appointed her to
the post of Assistant Teacher on a temporary basis for a period of 1
year w.e.f. 01.07.1992 till 31.05.1993. That by another order dated
14.10.1993, the Petitioner/Management appointed her on the post of
Assistant Teacher on temporary basis from April 1993 to May 1994.
Navnath Waghmare 2
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 18:36:43

WP-1881-2002 J C2.doc
3.2. That on 20.05.1994 she communicated her willingness to the
school to appear for D.Ed and also informed that she will continue to
serve the school even after completing D.Ed.
3.3 That thereafter the Petitioner/Management by order dated
20.08.1996 appointed Respondent No. 1 in the post of Headmistress
on permanent basis with retrospective effect from 01.06.1995,
considering her satisfactory work.
3.4. That on 21.08.1996, the Petitioner/Management submitted her
proposal to the concerned education officer for age relaxation and by
order dated 11.03.1997, concerned education authority was pleased to
grant age relaxation in respect of overage of Respondent No. 1 by 13
years, 10 months and 2 days.
3.5. That in these circumstances, the Petitioner/Management has
terminated the services of Respondent No. 1 by order dated
14.02.1998, on the ground that she is not qualified for the post of
Assistant Teacher, as she is untrained candidate for the reason that she
has completed D.Ed. from private unrecognized institute.
3.6. That the action of termination is illegal because under a Circular
dated 05.11.1997 issued by the Respondent /State, she is entitled to
protection of services and regularization.
3.7. That in the proposal for age relaxation, it was clearly disclosed
that her qualification D.Ed was from private institute and that there is
no suppression.
3.8. That her representation dated 23.02.1998 informing that she will
complete D.Ed training was not considered and it was turned down,
denying opportunity.
Navnath Waghmare 3
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 18:36:43

WP-1881-2002 J C2.doc
4. The Petitioner/Management filed a reply /written statement
opposing the appeal, contending inter alia as under :
4.1. That Respondent No. 1 was not duly qualified to be appointed as
Assistant Teacher. That the said Rules provide for proper educational
qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher which is
S.S.C., D.Ed and unless such qualification is held by Respondent No. 1,
she cannot be considered as eligible. That Respondent No. 1 was not
eligible for the post of primary teacher.
4.2. That concerned Education Officer passed remarks in the year
1997, at the time of inspection, that Respondent No. 1 is not duly
qualified and cannot remain on the post of Headmistress and cannot be
appointed as Assistant Teacher. That the Management received a letter
from Shikshan Mandal P.M.C. Pune on 04.12.1997 which is replied by
them stating therein that they were under genuine impression that
Respondent No.1 possessed requisite qualification.
4.3. That Respondent No.1 being untrained, could not have been
permitted to continue and therefore order of termination is legal.
5. The matter proceeded ex-parte against the concerned
education officer, as he/she did not appear and contest.
6. The Tribunal after considering the rival submissions and on
appreciation of evidence/material produced on record, has allowed the
appeal under impugned order as explained above.
7. In these circumstances, the Management/School has filed this
petition, which is admitted on 28.03.2002 and interim stay was granted
to the impugned order.
Navnath Waghmare 4
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 18:36:43

WP-1881-2002 J C2.doc
8. During pendency of the petition, Respondent No. 1 filed Civil
Application No. 1281 of 2004 which was heard by this Court and
permission was granted to Respondent No.1 to complete D.Ed course,
without prejudice to rights and contentions of the Petitioners/
Management and School.
SUBMISSIONS
9. Mr. Pitre, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners/
Management and school submitted as under :
9.1. That Respondent No. 1 has admittedly not completed D.Ed from
recognized institute till today. That therefore she is an untrained teacher
and could not have been appointed. That her appointment was illegal
and therefore could not have been continued.
9.2. That impugned order has remained stayed since last about 24
years and in the interregnum, Respondent No. 1 has reached the age of
superannuation in 2008, during pending of the petition.
9.3. That the fact of Respondent No. 1 applying to this Court seeking
permission to complete D.Ed in the year 2004, itself indicates that she
has not completed D.Ed within a period of 3 years as per concerned
Circular dated 05.11.1997 and/or Government Resolution dated
02.06.2000 (G.R. for short) and therefore, even if chance was to be
given, Respondent No. 1 has not completed D.Ed. 'within 3 years’ time
and therefore interference is required and impugned order needs to be
set aside.
9.4. He relied upon following judgments in support of his case :
i) Sawale Motiram Shridhar Vs. Maharashtra Seva Sangh,
Navnath Waghmare 5
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 18:36:43

WP-1881-2002 J C2.doc
Solapur and Ors. 2009 (4) Mh.L.J. 233.
ii) Jayashree Sunil Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
2000 (3) Mh.L.J. 605
10. On the other hand, Mr. Rairkar, learned counsel for
Respondent No. 1 submitted as under.
10.1. That Respondent No. 1 never concealed or suppressed that she
has completed D.Ed from private institution. That stand of the
Management about alleged concealment and misrepresentation about
D.Ed qualification is factually incorrect and shows dishonest approach
of the Management.
10.2. That there is no foundation in the pleadings and there is no issue
or decision about aspect of concealment and suppression by
Respondent No.1 and therefore can not be held against Respondent
No.1.
10.3. That educational qualification (including D.Ed. From private
institute) is mentioned in age-relaxation proposal, duly accepted /
approved by Education Authority.
10.4. That in the circumstances, adverse hand written remarks by the
Education Officer at the time of inspection can not be the basis of
termination.
10.5. That no dispute was raised about qualification of Respondent
No.1 till inspection.
10.6. Relying on the wordings of Circular dated 05.11.1997 and G.R.
dated 02.06.2000, it is submitted that ‘opportunity must have been
given to Respondent’ to continue in service and complete D.Ed. That
Navnath Waghmare 6
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 18:36:43

WP-1881-2002 J C2.doc
since Respondent No.1 was not kept in service (terminated) it cannot
be said that opportunity was given. Only such teachers who have not
completed necessary qualification despite opportunity, were supposed
to be terminated.
10.7. That such opportunity, having been denied, service of Respondent
No. 1 was duly protected by said Circular and G.R.
10.8. That approval by Education Officer is never condition precedent
for valid appointment and issue regarding legality of original
appointment has not been framed or considered.
10.9. He relied on following judgments in support of his case :
i) Jayashree Sunil Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
2000 (4) L.L.N. 136.
ii) State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Tukaram Tryambak
Chaudhari and Ors. (2007) 2 S.C.R. 835.
iii) Kondiba S/o. Dattarao Mirashe Vs. State of Maharashtra &
Ors. 2003 (2) ALL MR 951.
iv) ST. Ulai High School and Anr. Vs. Devendraprasad
Jagannath Singh and Anr. 2007 (1) Mh.L.J. 597.
v) The New Education Institute Nasik & Ors. Vs. Mahejabin
Ashfak Ahmed Shaikh and Ors. 2007 (6) ALL MR 516.
vi)Namdeo Sukdeo Saptale Vs. Chairman, Kai Ramchandra
Patil Shikshan Sanstha, Kunikonur and Ors. 2016 (3) Mh.L.J.
827.
vii)Trimurti Balak Mandir Shikshan Sanstha & Anr. Vs. Smt.
Vithabai Bhikan Desale & Ors. 2018 (7) ALL MR 583.
viii) Dipika Rahul Wadile alias Dipika Sunil Dhole Vs. Eklavya
Navnath Waghmare 7
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 18:36:43

WP-1881-2002 J C2.doc
Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ors. in Writ Petition No. 2843
of 2022 - Judgment of this Court dated 30.09.2025.
ix)Jaiveer Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Uttarakhand and
Ors. (2023) 15 S.C.R. 597.
x)Garment Craft Vs. Prakash Chand Goel (2022) 4 SCC 181.
xi) Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust Vs. State of Maharashtra
and Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912.
xii) Miss Sonali Mallikarjun Bedgnur Vs. The Secretary,
Dnyansampada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ors. in Writ
Petition No. 9528 of 2019 - Judgment of this Court dated
31.01.2022.
11. Mr. Pitre, in rejoinder submitted that the argument of
Respondent No.1 cannot be accepted because it will amount to ‘once a
teacher always a teacher’ and if Respondent No.1 really intended to
complete D.Ed qualification from approved institute, then there was no
reason to apply during pendency of the petition in 2004 and she could
have completed the D.Ed otherwise also. He submitted that even today,
it is not known whether Respondent No.1 has completed D.Ed or not.
He submitted that attendance in school was not required for completing
D.Ed course. He finally submitted that Respondent No.1 was permitted
to continue, then batch after batch of students would have suffered
from having untrained teacher.
REASONS AND CONCLUSION
12. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the
record.
13. At the outset, it is necessary to note that there is no dispute on
many factual aspects.
Navnath Waghmare 8
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 18:36:43

WP-1881-2002 J C2.doc
14. It is not in dispute that long before termination during
continuation of her service on 20.05.1994, Respondent No.1 had
applied to the then Head Mistress of Petitioner/school that, if permitted,
she is willing to complete D.Ed and that she will not take long leave for
the said purpose and will continue to serve the institute even after
completing D.Ed.
15. It is also undisputed that thereafter, on 20.08.1996
Respondent No.1 has been appointed as Headmistress and her proposal
for age relaxation was sent to the Education Department by the
Petitioner/Management and it was disclosed therein that Respondent
No.1 has completed the D.Ed. from private institute. It is undisputed
that such age relaxation was granted by the concerned Education
Officer by letter dated 11.03.1997.
16. It is not in dispute that State had issued Circular dated
05.11.1997 addressed to all Directors of Education about continuation
of untrained teachers like Respondent No.1, whereunder it was
provided that such untrained teachers whose appointments are
approved up to June 1997 should be continued and time for completion
of necessary training by correspondence was extended by a period of 3
years. This Circular specifically provides that if, ‘despite opportunity
being granted, a teacher does not complete the necessary training’ then
such teacher will be liable for termination.
17. It is undisputed that thereafter on 14.02.1998 Respondent
No.1 was terminated, with effect from 01.03.1998. According to the
petition paragraph nos. 11 to 13, the Management tried to give
opportunity to Respondent No. 1 by writing a letter dated 26.02.1998 to
the concerned Education Authority seeking permission to continue
Navnath Waghmare 9
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 18:36:43

WP-1881-2002 J C2.doc
services of Respondent No.1.
18. It is undisputed that immediately thereafter on 23.02.1998,
the Respondent No.1 filed representation to Education Authority
(Deputy Director of Education), however, on 11.06.1998, the
Petitioner/Management rejected her request, pointing finger at
Education Authority.
19. It is undisputed that on 02.06.2000 State has issued a G.R.
providing protection to the teachers like Respondent No.1. This G.R. has
similar protection for continuation of service and opportunity to be
given to untrained teachers.
20. From the termination order dated 14.02.1998, it is clear that
the reason given for termination is that Respondent No.1 is untrained
teacher. This termination is in the face of said Circular, which required
the management to give opportunity to Respondent No.1.
21. Therefore, it is clear, that the Petitioners/Management and
school was required to give opportunity to Respondent No.1 and her
service could not have been terminated and then if Respondent No.1
had not completed D.Ed. from recognised institute, she could have been
terminated.
22. The Respondent No.1 had applied to the Education
Department (Deputy Director of Education) making specific reference to
the Circular dated 05.11.1997 stating that she will complete the D.Ed
education by correspondence in three years. Despite such situation, the
Petitioner/Management on 11.06.1998 informed Respondent No.1 that
‘Education Authority has informed that she is not eligible for
appointment as primary teacher’.
Navnath Waghmare 10
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 18:36:43

WP-1881-2002 J C2.doc
23. Perusal of the said G.R. dated 02.06.2000 also clearly
indicates that teachers like Respondent No.1 who were in service prior
to 25.11.1997, the service of untrained teachers were directed to be
regularized subject to terms and conditions, including opportunity to
the teacher to complete necessary training.
24. In view of aforesaid facts, it is clear that both the said
Circular as well as said G.R. contemplates opportunity to be given to
Respondent No.1 which opportunity was not given by the
Petitioner/Management. Even her representation thereafter seeking
indulgence was turned down on the ground that the Education Officer
has informed that she is not eligible.
25. As held by the Full Bench of this Court in ST. Ulai High
School (Supra), it is settled position of law that grant of approval by the
Education Officer is not a condition precedent for a valid order of
appointment. In the present case, the appointment orders were given
with complete knowledge of Respondent No.1 completing D.Ed. course
from private institute and the same is part of the record as disclosed in
the regularization proposal also, given at the time of age relaxation.
Therefore, merely on the ground that Education Officer has informed
that she is not eligible for appointment, the service of Respondent No.1
could not have been terminated and route provided under the said
Circular and G.R. ought to have been followed.
26. Also, the letter relied upon by the Petitioners (dated
26.02.1998) cannot be said to be an opportunity given to Respondent
No.1. This is because stand of the Petitioner/Management is that their
request for continuation of services of Respondent No.1 (based on
Circular dated 05.11.1997) was turned down by the concerned
Navnath Waghmare 11
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 18:36:43

WP-1881-2002 J C2.doc
Education Authority for the reason that school itself is recognized in the
year 1995 and therefore the services of Respondent No.1 in un-
recognized school cannot be considered for calculating continuous
service of 5 years, required for the benefit of said Circular. Perusal of the
said Circular, apparently does not indicate any such condition of
calculating continuous service of 5 years for the purpose of giving
benefit. In that view of the matter, the said argument does not have
merit.
27. In the light of what is observed above, when the impugned
order is perused, it is noted that the Tribunal has considered the
representation of Respondent No.1 referring to the Circular. The
Tribunal has also considered that under the said Circular the service of
untrained teacher like the Respondent No.1 was to be continued and
was to be permitted to complete required qualification within a period
of 3 years even by correspondence facility. The Tribunal has also
considered that Education Officer had given approval to the
appointment of Respondent No.1 earlier. The Tribunal has further
considered that if such representation was made giving reference to the
Circular then it was believable that Respondent No.1 expected
representation would be considered. The Tribunal has also considered
that while condoning the delay, such bona fide belief of Respondent
No.1 was one of the grounds.
28. The Tribunal has further considered the order of age
relaxation granted by the concerned Education Officer and has rightly
held that it shows that qualification of Respondent No.1 was considered
at the time when the proposal was sent to the Government. The
Tribunal has further considered thereafter in due course Respondent
Navnath Waghmare 12
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 18:36:43

WP-1881-2002 J C2.doc
No.1 was promoted as Headmistress. The Tribunal has also considered
various appointment orders including appointment of Headmistress and
has concluded that none of the appointment orders indicate any
grievance about Respondent No.1 not possessing requisite qualification.
It is not disputed in the present case that Respondent No.1 has
completed D.Ed course from private institute and necessary certificates
are produced. The Tribunal has considered that termination was
outcome of the annual inspection by the education authorities.
29. The Tribunal has considered the report of the concerned
Educational Authority dated 07.10.1997 referring to the work of
Respondent No.1 as Headmistress as good and satisfactory and
certifying that she has maintained standard of school and she punctual
in her duties. It is found by the Tribunal that though this report was
typed but it was mentioned in handwriting that Headmistress is not
qualified and cannot be so appointed. The Tribunal has then rightly
concluded that till 1997, there was no grievance about Respondent No.
1 not being qualified. The Tribunal has noted that only on the basis of
annual report, she was terminated.
30. The Tribunal has also considered G.R. dated 02.06.2000 which
makes reference to the earlier Circular dated 05.11.1997. The Tribunal
has also considered that G.R. provides for benefit to be given to
untrained teachers and that the untrained teachers were allowed to
complete requisite qualification and being entitled to continue in
service. The Tribunal has noted that work of Respondent No.1 was
satisfactory as certified in the report. The Tribunal has also rightly
concluded that it was expected from the Petitioner/Management to give
opportunity to Respondent No.1 to complete D.Ed course from
Navnath Waghmare 13
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 18:36:43

WP-1881-2002 J C2.doc
recognized institute and it was not proper on the part of the
Management to terminate her services without giving such opportunity.
31. So far as Sawale Motiram Shridhar (Supra) relied upon by the
Petitioners is concerned, the termination of the teacher therein was
because permanent post on which he was appointed was no more
available and Respondent therein who was working with some other
school was rendered surplus and therefore, Management therein was
directed to absorb. In that case, the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal
filed by the employee and while considering such dismissal, the learned
Single Judge of this Court has held that the employee was not holding
the prescribed qualification. Also in the said judgment, the present G.R.
and Circular was not under consideration. Hence, the present case is
clearly distinguishable. Therefore, the said judgment will not advance
the case of the Petitioner/Management.
32. So far as the judgment of Jayashree Sunil Chavan (Supra)
is concerned, the same is a landmark Full Bench judgment of this Court
dealing with the aspect of equivalence between D.Ed and B.Ed.
qualification for appointment in primary school. The aspect of
opportunity as provided under Circular dated 05.11.1997 was not the
issue involved. The issue considered was about equivalence of pay scale,
provided under said Circular as can be seen from the paragraph No.15
of the said judgment. Therefore, this judgment will also not advance the
case of the Petitioners.
33. The argument of learned counsel for the
Petitioners/Management that Respondent No. 1 never completed D.Ed
either after termination or even after permission from this Court, will
not have any material bearing because the compliance of the directions
Navnath Waghmare 14
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 18:36:43

WP-1881-2002 J C2.doc
under said Circular dated 05.11.1997 and G.R. dated 02.06.2000
required opportunity to be given to Respondent No. 1 and the
Petitioner/Management has not shown such opportunity being given.
34. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for the reasons
indicated above, I do not find any perversity in the impugned order. The
view taken is the most probable view. Hence, there is no reason to
interfere.
35. Writ Petition is dismissed and Rule is discharged. No order as
to costs.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)
Navnath Waghmare 15
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 18:36:43
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)