The Bombay High Court has clarified the limits of the Director of Education’s authority in rejecting proposals for Shalarth ID inclusion. The Court held that once an Education Officer approves an employee’s appointment, the Director cannot revisit the validity of that approval under the guise of addressing deficiencies, provided those deficiencies are subsequently removed. This judgment reinforces the principle that administrative authorities cannot exceed their jurisdiction by reviewing settled approvals, offering crucial protection to non-teaching staff in Maharashtra’s education sector.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sangpal Pandharinath Bhokare, a Scheduled Caste candidate, was appointed as a Peon in Vaidyanath Vidyalaya (Secondary), Parli Vaijnath, on 31.03.2011. His appointment was initially for three years, following which the school submitted a proposal for approval to the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Beed. The Education Officer granted approval on 26.06.2014, recognizing his appointment as permanent with effect from 01.04.2014. Subsequently, the school submitted a proposal for including the petitioner’s name in the Shalarth ID, a government portal for salary disbursement and service records.
Key Facts
31.03.2011: Petitioner appointed as Peon by Vaidyanath Vidyalaya (Secondary)
26.06.2014: Education Officer (Respondent No. 4) granted approval for the petitioner’s appointment, making him a permanent employee w.e.f. 01.04.2014
13.12.2017: Deputy Director of Education (Respondent No. 3) recommended the proposal for Shalarth ID inclusion to the Director of Education (Respondent No. 2)
22.03.2019: Director of Education pointed out deficiencies in the proposal
08.04.2019: School (Respondent No. 7) removed all deficiencies and intimated the Director accordingly
18.09.2019: Director of Education rejected the proposal for Shalarth ID inclusion, citing non-compliance with deficiencies despite their removal
Procedural History
18.09.2019: Impugned order passed by Respondent No. 2 rejecting Shalarth ID inclusion
2023: Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 15115 of 2023 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench
17.06.2026: Matter reserved for judgment
06.07.2026: Judgment pronounced
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
Quashing of the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by Respondent No. 3
A direction to Respondent No. 3 to include the petitioner’s name in the Shalarth ID
A direction to Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to release arrears of salary within one month and ensure regular monthly salary payments, either online or offline
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Director of Education can reject a proposal for Shalarth ID inclusion on the ground of deficiencies, even after those deficiencies have been removed, when the Education Officer has already granted approval for the employee’s appointment. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the Director could revisit the validity of the approval under the pretext of addressing procedural deficiencies.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s appointment was approved by the Education Officer on 26.06.2014 after following due procedure
The Deputy Director of Education recommended the proposal for Shalarth ID inclusion on 13.12.2017
All deficiencies pointed out by the Director were removed by the school on 08.04.2019
The Director’s rejection of the proposal was arbitrary and without authority, as the Director cannot sit in review over the Deputy Director’s recommendation
Reliance was placed on the judgment in Amol Baban Sangar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2022 DGLS (Bom.) 1088, which held that neither the Deputy Director nor the Director can review or cancel an approval order while considering Shalarth ID inclusion
For the Respondent (State)
The Director of Education has supervisory authority over teaching and non-teaching staff in Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools
While scrutinizing the proposal, the Director can examine the validity of the selection process
The deficiencies pointed out were not fully complied with, justifying the rejection of the proposal
The Director’s decision was within the scope of his authority and not arbitrary
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of the Director of Education’s authority in light of the approval already granted by the Education Officer. It observed that the petitioner’s appointment was approved in 2014, and the proposal for Shalarth ID inclusion was recommended by the Deputy Director in 2017. The Director’s rejection of the proposal, despite the removal of deficiencies, was seen as an attempt to revisit the validity of the approval granted by the Education Officer.
The Court relied on the precedent in Amol Baban Sangar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., which held that:
"The Deputy Director of Education or the Director of Education, as the case may be, has no power to review or cancel the order of approval while entertaining the proposal for inclusion of name of an employee in the Shalarth ID."
The Court further noted that in an identical situation, it had allowed a similar writ petition (Sujit Prabhakarrao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., Writ Petition No. 2926/2022) on 19.09.2024, reinforcing the principle that administrative authorities cannot exceed their jurisdiction by reviewing settled approvals.
The Court held that once the Education Officer had approved the petitioner’s appointment, the Director could not reject the Shalarth ID inclusion proposal under the garb of addressing deficiencies, especially when those deficiencies had been removed. To do so would amount to an unauthorized review of the Education Officer’s decision, which is beyond the Director’s powers.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the writ petition in terms of prayer Clauses ‘B’ and ‘C’. The impugned order dated 18.09.2019 was quashed and set aside. The Court directed:
Respondent No. 3 to include the petitioner’s name in the Shalarth ID
Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to release the petitioner’s arrears of salary and ensure regular monthly salary payments, either online or offline if the Shalarth ID inclusion is not processed
No order was passed as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Administrative Authorities Cannot Revisit Approvals
This judgment establishes a critical limitation on the powers of administrative authorities, particularly in service law matters. Practitioners can now argue that:
Once an approval is granted by a competent authority (e.g., the Education Officer), a higher authority (e.g., the Director) cannot reject a subsequent proposal (e.g., Shalarth ID inclusion) by revisiting the validity of that approval
The rejection of such proposals under the guise of addressing deficiencies, especially after those deficiencies have been removed, is arbitrary and without jurisdiction
Shalarth ID Inclusion: A Protected Right for Approved Employees
Employees whose appointments have been approved by the Education Officer are entitled to Shalarth ID inclusion, provided any deficiencies in the proposal are removed
The Director’s role is limited to ensuring procedural compliance and cannot extend to reviewing the merits of the approval granted by a subordinate authority
This principle may extend to other government portals or schemes where inclusion is contingent on prior approval
Precedent for Challenging Arbitrary Administrative Actions
The judgment reinforces the ratio in Amol Baban Sangar, providing a strong precedent for challenging arbitrary rejections of proposals by higher authorities
Practitioners can cite this judgment to argue against similar rejections in other service-related matters, such as promotions, transfers, or benefits disbursement
The Court’s reliance on Sujit Prabhakarrao Deshmukh demonstrates a consistent judicial approach to protecting employees from administrative overreach
