Full Judgment Text
2026:BHC-NAG:4340-DB
Judgment 1 905-WP1485.26-J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1485 OF 20 26
PETITIONERS :- 1. Shahbabu Urdu Education Society,
Patur, Tq. Patur, District Akola (Reg.
No.B-79/59 U/S SR Act 1860 and Reg.
No.F-67-Akola U/s BPT Act, 1950)
having office at Shahbabu High School,
Near Old Bus Stand, Patur, District
Akola – 444 501 (Minority Institution)
through its Secretary – Syed Ishaque
Syed Nabi.
2. Shahbabu Urdu High School, Alegaon,
Tq. Patur, dist. Akola, through
Headmaster.
3. Mohammad Sameer Mohammad
Saleem, aged about 34 years, Occ.
Service as Junior Clerk, C/o Mohd.
Saleem, Killa Ward 12, Patur, Tq. Patur,
Dist. Akola-444 501.
-Versus-
RESPONDENTS :- 1. The Deputy Director of Education,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
2. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Akola.
3. The Director of Education, Maharashtra
State, Central Building, Pune, Dist.
Pune.
4. Superintendent of Pay and Provident
Unit (Secondary), office at District
Education and Training Sanstha
Premises, Near Santoshi Mata Mandir,
Akola, Dist. Akola.
Judgment 2 905-WP1485.26-J.odt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ram D. Karode, Adv. for the petitioners.
Mr. N.R.Patil, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MRS. M. S. JAWALKAR AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE , JJ .
DATE O N RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 13/03/ 202 6
DATE ON PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 16/03/2026
COMMON JUDGMENT : (Per – M. S. JAWALKAR, J.)
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is
taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission by consent of the
parties.
3. The petition takes exception to the order dated
10/02/2026 issued by the respondent No.4-Superintendent of Pay
and Provident Unit (Secondary) and for further direction to include
the name of the petitioner No.3 in the Shalarth Pranali and to allot
Shalarth ID.
4. We have heard Mr. Ram Karode, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. N. R. Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader
for the respondents.
Judgment 3 905-WP1485.26-J.odt
5. By taking us through the impugned order dated
10/02/2026, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that only
reason given for non-inclusion of the name of petitioner in Shalarth
ID in the said communication is that till the employees who have
been declared surplus have been absorbed, Shalarth ID could not be
granted.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the
petitioner No.1 being a minority institution, the said reason is totally
misconceived. He places reliance on a judgment of this Court
reported in 2016(2) Mh.L.J. 212 (Young Boys Educational and
Industrial Circle Vs. State of Maharashtra and others), as also
judgment reported in 2015(3) ALL MR 575 (The Canossa Society and
another Vs. The Commissioner Social Welfare and others). By placing
reliance on the said judgment, learned counsel submits that as far as
petitioner No.1 is concerned the direction regarding absorbing the
surplus staff is not maintainable.
7. We have perused the said judgments as also considered
the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties. The
issue seems to be covered by the authorities i.e. co-ordinate Division
Benches of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court by
exhaustively enunciating the law in the case of Canossa Society and
Judgment 4 905-WP1485.26-J.odt
another (supra) that a minority educational institution cannot be
made to absorb the surplus staff.
8. The controversy in the present petition is squarely
covered by an authoritative pronouncement of this court in Canossa
Society and another vs Commissioner, Social Welfare, Directorate,
Government of Maharashtra and Others (2014 SCC OnLine Bom
536) and more particularly para 22 thereof which reads as under:
22. There is merit in the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioners. In the present case by the
impugned directive dated 17.6.2011 the respondent nos.
1 to 3 have foisted upon the petitioners the appointment
of the respondent no.4 who is rendered a surplus
employee in view of the closure of a school situate in
Nanded District. Admittedly, there is no consultation
with petitioner no.2-school before such appointment is
thrusted upon the petitioner no.2-school. The
respondent-authorities have also failed to take into
consideration the fact that there is no vacancy as urged
by the petitioners before the authorities, in view of the
appointment of Mrs.Jyotsna Thorat who came to be
appointed on 30.9.2006 and whose appointment was
approved on 18.8.2007. Consequence of the impugned
order issued by the respondent no.1 is that the approved
appointment of Mrs.Jyotsna Thorat as validly done by
the petitioner No.2-institution in exercise of its right to
administer a minority educational institution is being
interfered, coupled with a consequence that such valid
appointment would be required to be cancelled. In our
considered opinion it is impermissible for respondent
nos. 1 to 3 to resort to such an action of foisting
appointment of respondent no.4 on the petitioner no.1-
Judgment 5 905-WP1485.26-J.odt
institution as it directly infringes the fundamental right
guaranteed under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of
India conferred on the petitioner no.2 institution to
administer and establish wp1049.12.doc petitioner no.2
school. The State authorities cannot indirectly do an act
which cannot directly be done. In other words, when the
State has no authority to make appointment of teaching
and non-teaching staff in respect of a minority
institution, even if aid has been granted, such action of
making an appointment cannot be taken by directing
absorption of a surplus employee. This is nothing but,
making appointment of a staff member in a minority
institution. The law confers no such authority and power
with the State Government to thrust an employee
rendered surplus in other schools to be absorbed by a
minority institution. Rule 25 A of the Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services)
Rules cannot be made applicable to appoint surplus staff
in a minority institution unless the minority institution is
consulted and concurs for such an appointment. We,
therefore have no hesitation to conclude that the
impugned order dated 17.6.2011 issued bay respondent
no.1 is wholly arbitrary and illegal as the same infringes
on the petitioner's right guaranteed under Article 30 (1)
of the Constitution of India."
9. The view has been followed in Young Boys Education and
Industrial Circle vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2016 (2)
Mh.L.J. 212.
10. In view of the citations stated supra, we are of the
considered opinion that the impugned communications are liable to
be quashed and set aside. We, therefore, pass the following order:
Judgment 6 905-WP1485.26-J.odt
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned communication dated dated 10/02/2026
passed by the respondent No.4 - Superintendent of Pay
and Provident Unit (Secondary), Akola as well as
communication dated 28/05/2025 to the extent of
petitioner are hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) It is hereby directed that the respondent No.1-Deputy
Director of Education, Amravati Division, Amravati shall
include the name of petitioner No.3-Mohammad Sameer
Mohammad Saleem in the Shalarth Pranali and allot the
Shalarth ID in his name and grant him all consequential
benefits ensuing therefrom.
11. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
KHUNTE
Signed by: Mr. G.S. Khunte
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 16/03/2026 18:46:07