VIJAY UTTAM CHAVHAN vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:10507-DB
1520-26-WP.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1520 OF 2026
Vijay S/o. Uttam Chavhan,
Age: 42 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. Keli Tnada, Kiti Adgaon,
Tq. & Dist. Hingoli.
At Present Jinture, Tq. Jinture,
Dist. Parbhani. … Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
School Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.
2. The Director of Eduction,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. The Divisional Deputy Director of Education,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Region,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
4. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Parbhani.
Dist. Parbhani.
5. Dnyandeep Shikshan Prasaram Mandal,
Jintur, Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani,
Through its President.
6. Annabhau Sathe Primary School,
Jintur, Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani.
Through its Headmaster. … Respondents
......
Mr. U.M. Maske, Advocate h/f Mr. S.B. Ghatol Patil, Advocate for
Petitioner
Mr. Abhijit M. Phule, AGP for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3
Mr. S.R. Yadav Lonikar, Advocate for Respondent No.4
......

1520-26-WP.odt
{2}
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
DATED : 04 MARCH, 2026
JUDGMENT [Per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.] :-
1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking a direction against Respondent No.3, the
Divisional Deputy Director of Education, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, to
consider the proposal submitted for inclusion of the name of the
petitioner in the Shalarth Pranali and to issue a Shalarth ID so that the
petitioner may receive salary along with consequential benefits.
2. The petitioner is serving as an Assistant Teacher in the school
run by respondent Nos.5 and 6 and is presently working as In-charge
Headmaster of the said institution. The petitioner was initially
appointed as a Shikshan Sevak on 22.01.2013 after following due
procedure as prescribed under the relevant statutory framework
governing appointments in private aided schools. After completion of
the probation period, the petitioner continued in service as Assistant
Teacher and the management issued appropriate orders in that regard.
3. The proposal dated 24.01.2013 seeking approval to the
petitioner’s appointment as Shikshan Sevak was submitted by the
management to the office of respondent No.4, the Education Officer

1520-26-WP.odt
{3}
(Primary). Subsequently, another proposal dated 27.01.2015 was
forwarded seeking approval for continuation of services and
appointment as Assistant Teacher. Upon due scrutiny of the proposals,
respondent No.4 passed an order dated 26.03.2015 granting approval
to the initial appointment of the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak for the
period from 22.01.2013 to 21.01.2015 and thereafter granted approval
to the continuation of the petitioner’s services as Assistant Teacher with
continuity from 21.01.2015 on a non-grant basis.
4. The petitioner continued to work in the said institution without
any interruption. On 31.07.2022, a post of Assistant Teacher receiving
grant-in-aid became vacant due to the retirement of one Assistant
Teacher. Considering the vacancy, the petitioner was transferred from an
unaided post to an aided post in the cadre of Assistant Teacher. A
proposal dated 05.09.2022 was submitted by respondent Nos.5 and 6
seeking approval for such transfer from unaided to aided post.
respondent No.4 granted approval to the said transfer and appointment
of the petitioner on the aided post in the school of Respondent No.6.
5. Thereafter, on 26.09.2022, the management submitted a
proposal to Respondent No.4 seeking inclusion of the name of the
petitioner in the Shalarth Pranali so that the petitioner may receive
salary from the grant-in-aid received by the institution. Respondent

1520-26-WP.odt
{4}
No.4 forwarded the proposal with positive recommendation to
respondent No.3, the Divisional Deputy Director of Education.
6. By communication dated 01.11.2022, respondent No.3 returned
the proposal by pointing out certain deficiencies. The management
thereafter cured the deficiencies and submitted a fresh proposal on
01.02.2024 along with all supporting documents including proof of
vacancy in the aided post and the relevant grant-in-aid sanction orders.
respondent No.4 again forwarded the proposal with positive remarks on
04.03.2024.
7. Since the submission of the proposal in March 2024, the matter
has remained pending before respondent No.3 without any decision.
The petitioner has repeatedly approached the offices of respondent
Nos.3 and 4 requesting that his name be included in the Shalarth
system so that he may receive his lawful salary. However, despite the
lapse of considerable time, the proposal has not been decided.
8. The petitioner submits that once all necessary approvals for his
appointment have already been granted and the appointment on the
aided post has also been approved, the inclusion of his name in the
Shalarth Pranali is merely a ministerial and consequential act. However,
due to the inaction of the authorities, the petitioner has been deprived
of salary for more than three years.

1520-26-WP.odt
{5}
9. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents and
after perusing the documents on record, this Court finds the conduct of
the concerned authorities extremely disturbing.
10. The documents placed before this Court clearly establish that the
petitioner’s appointment as Shikshan Sevak was duly approved and that
thereafter approval for continuation as Assistant Teacher was also
granted by the competent authority. The subsequent transfer of the
petitioner from an unaided post to an aided post was also duly
approved by the Education Officer. These approval orders have attained
finality and have not been challenged or set aside by any authority.
11. Once the appointment of the petitioner on the aided post stands
approved, the inclusion of his name in the Shalarth Pranali for the
purpose of salary disbursement is a consequential administrative step.
While considering such proposal, the Divisional Deputy Director of
Education is not expected to reopen the issue of appointment approval
or sit in appeal over the order passed by the Education Officer [Pramod
Prabhakar Pokale vs. State of Maharashtra 2019(3) Bom. C.R. 278
(A.B.)]
12. The role of Respondent No.3 in such cases is limited to verifying
whether the appointment approval order exists, whether the vacancy is

1520-26-WP.odt
{6}
duly sanctioned and aided, and whether the proposal submitted by the
management and forwarded by the Education Officer is complete in all
respects. Upon such verification, the name of the teacher is required to
be included in the Shalarth Pranali and a Shalarth ID must be issued
without unnecessary delay.
13. This Court has increasingly come across several matters where
proposals submitted to the offices of Education Officers and Divisional
Deputy Directors of Education remain pending for months and
sometimes even years without any decision. As a result, teachers who
are legitimately appointed and whose appointments have been duly
approved are forced to work without salary merely because their names
are not included in the Shalarth system.
14. Such a situation is wholly unacceptable. Salary is not a charity
or a favour granted by the State. It is the lawful remuneration for
services rendered by a Teacher. Denial of salary for years together due
to administrative inaction amounts to grave injustice and directly affects
the dignity and livelihood of the teacher and his family.
15. The mechanism of Shalarth Pranali has been introduced by the
State Government for transparency and accountability in the
disbursement of salary to teachers working in aided institutions. While
the objective of the system is laudable, the authorities entrusted with

1520-26-WP.odt
{7}
the administration of the system must ensure that it functions efficiently
and does not become an instrument of harassment.
16. During the course of hearing, this Court inquired whether there
exist any guidelines issued by the State Government prescribing
timelines within which such proposals are required to be decided by the
Education Officers and the Divisional Deputy Directors of Education.
The learned AGP fairly submitted that no such comprehensive
guidelines or time-bound framework presently exists.
17. In the absence of such guidelines, the authorities are exercising
unregulated administrative discretion which often results in delay and
arbitrariness. It also affects the filing of avoidable litigation before this
Court, as the poor teachers are required to approach this Court only for
directions to decide the proposals pending before various authorities. It
is therefore necessary for this Court to issue appropriate directions so
that the proposals relating to appointments, approvals and inclusion in
the Shalarth system are decided within a reasonable time.
18. Accordingly, this Court lays down the following guidelines which
shall be followed by all Education Officers and Divisional Deputy
Directors of Education throughout the State of Maharashtra until
appropriate Government Resolution is issued by the State Government.

1520-26-WP.odt
{8}
19. Whenever a proposal relating to approval of appointment,
approval of transfer from unaided to aided post, approval of promotion,
approval of appointment of Shikshan Sevak, or inclusion of a teacher’s
name in the Shalarth Pranali and any other proposals are submitted by
the management or headmaster, the concerned Education Officer shall
scrutinize the proposal within a period of fifteen days from the date of
receipt. If any deficiency is noticed, the same shall be communicated to
the management in writing within the said period clearly specifying all
deficiencies at once.
20. The management shall be granted a reasonable period not
exceeding fifteen days to cure the deficiencies. Once the corrected
proposal is resubmitted, the Education Officer shall decide the proposal
within thirty days and pass a reasoned order granting approval or
rejecting the proposal.
21. In cases where the proposal is required to be forwarded to the
Divisional Deputy Director of Education, the Education Officer shall
forward the proposal along with clear remarks and recommendations
within seven (07) days from the date of proposal.
22. Upon receipt of such proposal, the Divisional Deputy Director of
Education shall scrutinize the proposal strictly within thirty (30) days. If
the appointment approval already exists and the vacancy is duly

1520-26-WP.odt
{9}
sanctioned, the Divisional Deputy Director shall ensure immediate
inclusion of the teacher’s name in the Shalarth Pranali and issuance of
Shalarth ID.
23. While examining proposals for Shalarth inclusion, the Divisional
Deputy Director shall not reopen or re-examine the validity of the
appointment approval already granted by the Education Officer, unless
the approval order itself has been set aside by a higher authority or the
court. The Divisional Deputy Director shall follow the judgment in Amol
BabanSangar vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2022 (2) Bom. C.R.
484.
24. If any deficiency is found in the proposal at the level of the
Divisional Deputy Director, the same shall be communicated to the
Education Officer and the management within ten (10) days, and the
corrected proposal shall be decided within fifteen (15) days thereafter.
25. In no case shall proposals relating to appointment approvals,
transfer approvals, promotion approvals, grant-in-aid vacancy
approvals, or inclusion in the Shalarth system remain pending beyond
sixty (60) days from the date of submission of complete proposal.
26. The Education Department shall maintain a digital tracking
system for all proposals received by the Education Officers and

1520-26-WP.odt
{10}
Divisional Deputy Directors of Education. The status of every proposal
shall be updated online so that unnecessary delay and lack of
accountability are eliminated.
27. If any officer fails to decide such proposals within the prescribed
time limit without sufficient cause, the concerned authority shall record
the reasons for delay in writing and the matter shall be reported to the
higher authority.
28. Any deliberate delay, negligence or failure in deciding such
proposals within the prescribed timeline shall amount to administrative
misconduct and shall invite departmental action against the concerned
officer.
29. The Principal Secretary, School Education Department,
Government of Maharashtra, is directed to issue a comprehensive
Government Resolution within two (02) months incorporating the
above guidelines and prescribing a uniform procedure and timeline for
consideration of all proposals relating to teacher appointments,
approvals, transfer appointments, promotional appointments and
Shalarth inclusion, etc. in consonance with existing Government
Resolutions.

1520-26-WP.odt
{11}
30. The said Government Resolution shall be circulated to all
Education Officers, Deputy Directors of Education, Divisional
Commissioners and all authorities connected with the administration of
aided and unaided schools in the State of Maharashtra with an office
order to follow the guidelines and observe the time line limits. The
guidelines shall be followed strictly and mandatorily.
31. Failure to comply with the Government Resolution and the
timelines prescribed therein shall result in disciplinary proceedings
against the concerned officers.
32. Coming to the present case, the proposal for inclusion of the
petitioner’s name in the Shalarth Pranali has remained pending for an
unreasonable period though all approvals have already been granted.
33. Respondent No.3, the Divisional Deputy Director of Education,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, is therefore directed to decide the proposal
dated 01.02.2024 and include the name of the petitioner in the Shalarth
Pranali and issue Shalarth ID within four (04) weeks from the date of
receipt of this order, in case there is no deficiency.
34. Upon issuance of Shalarth ID, the salary of the petitioner shall
be released forthwith along with all consequential benefits in
accordance with law.

1520-26-WP.odt
{12}
35. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms.
36. Compliance Report be filed by Principal Secretary, Education
Department in this Court on the next date.
37. Placed the matter for compliance on 04.05.2026.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
S P Rane