ALTAF AHMED RASOOL SAHEB JAKLER vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU THE SEC. SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SPORTS DEPT AND ORS — WP/12174/2024

Case under Mah. Pvt. School (C of S) Regulation Act Section N.A. Disposed: Contested--Rule Made Absolute on 04th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM070373072024

Filing Number

WP/21353/2024

Filing Date

30-Jul-2024

Registration No

WP/12174/2024

Registration Date

28-Aug-2024

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar , Hon'ble Shri Justice Pravin Sheshrao Patil

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar , Hon'ble Shri Justice Pravin Sheshrao Patil

Bench Type

Division

Category

OTHER SERVICE MATTERS ( 66 )

Sub-Category

ALL OTHER SERVICE MATTERS - DB ( 3 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

04-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Rule Made Absolute

Last updated 17-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Mah. Pvt. School (C of S) Regulation Act Section N.A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ALTAF AHMED RASOOL SAHEB JAKLER

    Adv. PRASHANT BHAVAKE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU THE SEC. SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SPORTS DEPT AND ORS

  2. 2.THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION PUNE REGION PUNE

  3. 3.THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MUNICIPLE SCHOOL BOARD SOLAPUR

  4. 4.UNION EDUCATION SOCIETY SOLAPUR

    Adv. Lokesh Zade

  5. 5.UNION EDUCATION SOCIETY'S PRIMARY SCHOOL SOLAPUR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar,hon'ble Shri Justice Pravin Sheshrao PatilView PDF

    Case Summary: WP/12174/2024 Court Decision: The petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the Deputy Director of Education's rejection of the petitioner's appointment proposal and the consequent cancellation of approval by the Administrative Officer. Key Reasoning: The court distinguished this case from precedent by finding that when a Management proposes an employee for a nominated post under Section 3(2) of the MEPS Act, the Management itself must be valid and legally authorized. The petitioner lacked standing to challenge the rejection since the Management (the proper party) did not contest the Deputy Director's decision. Additionally, the Management violated procedural requirements by submitting the proposal to the education officer before obtaining Deputy Director approval, contrary to established legal procedure. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 22-Apr-2026

    Due Admission - 1

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar

  4. 20-Apr-2026

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar

  5. 03-Dec-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik,hon'ble Shri Justice Ajit B. KadethankarView PDF

  6. 03-Dec-2025

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik , Hon'ble Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh

  7. 01-Dec-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik,hon'ble Shri Justice Ajit B. KadethankarView PDF

  8. 22-Sep-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik,hon'ble Justice Sharmila U. DeshmukhView PDF

  9. 22-Sep-2025

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik , Hon'ble Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh

  10. 21-Aug-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik,hon'ble Justice Sharmila U. DeshmukhView PDF

  11. 21-Aug-2025

    Due Admission - 1

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge , Hon'ble Shri Justice M. M. Sathaye

  12. 04-Jul-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge,hon'ble Shri Justice M. M. SathayeView PDF

  13. 04-Jul-2025

    Due Admission - 1

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge , Hon'ble Shri Justice M. M. Sathaye

  14. 10-Jun-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge,hon'ble Shri Justice M. M. SathayeView PDF

  15. 10-Jun-2025

    Due Admission - 1

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe

  16. 03-Apr-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge,hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. BhobeView PDF

  17. 03-Apr-2025

    Due Admission - 1

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe

  18. 28-Feb-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge,hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. BhobeView PDF

  19. 28-Feb-2025

    Due Admission - 1

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe

  20. 27-Feb-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge,hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. BhobeView PDF

  21. 27-Feb-2025

    Due Admission - 1

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe

  22. 21-Feb-2025

    Due Admission - 1

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe

  23. 11-Dec-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge,hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. BhobeView PDF

  24. 18-Nov-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge,hon'ble Shri Justice Ashwin D. BhobeView PDF

  25. 20-Sep-2024

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. M. Sathaye , Hon'ble Shri Justice Nitin Jamdar

  26. 04-Sep-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. M. Sathaye,hon'ble Shri Justice Nitin JamdarView PDF

  27. 04-Sep-2024

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. M. Sathaye , Hon'ble Shri Justice Nitin Jamdar

  28. 08-Aug-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  29. 30-Jul-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/12174/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/12174/2024 Court Decision: The petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the Deputy Director of Education's rejection of the petitioner's appointment proposal and the consequent cancellation of approval by the Administrative Officer. Key Reasoning: The court distinguished this case from precedent by finding that when a Management proposes an employee for a nominated post under Section 3(2) of the MEPS Act, the Management itself must be valid and legally authorized. The petitioner lacked standing to challenge the rejection since the Management (the proper party) did not contest the Deputy Director's decision. Additionally, the Management violated procedural requirements by submitting the proposal to the education officer before obtaining Deputy Director approval, contrary to established legal procedure. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case