Published On : Thu, Sep 18th, 2025
By Nagpur Today Nagpur News

Shalarth ID scam: High Court orders Maha Govt to submit investigation report

Nagpur: The Shalarth ID scam that has shaken the education sector in Maharashtra has now reached the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court. Education Officer Chintaman Wanjari filed a writ petition demanding a departmental inquiry and strict action against those found guilty in the case.

On Tuesday, a division bench comprising Justice Anil Pansare and Justice Siddheshwar Thombre heard the petition and directed the State Government to submit the preliminary investigation report. The court made it clear that if the report is not submitted by the next hearing, the matter will proceed without the government’s response.

Gold Rate
19 Sept 2025
Gold 24 KT ₹ 1,10,300 /-
Gold 22 KT ₹ 1,02,600 /-
Silver/Kg ₹ 1,29,600/-
Platinum ₹ 48,000/-
Recommended rate for Nagpur sarafa Making charges minimum 13% and above

Adv Pradeep Kshirsagar and Adv Gadge represented Wanjari, while AGP A B Badar appeared for the state. Adv Kshirsagar underlined that there was no objection to the investigation itself. However, he sought clarity on the role of each person involved in the scam and demanded criminal action against those responsible. He also noted that the petitioner has already been granted bail. Despite this, the preliminary investigation report has not been shared by the government.

The case has raised questions about accountability within the education department. Wanjari’s counsel argued that as per a government proposal dated March 20, 2019, the Deputy Director of Education has the authority to enter names of teachers and non-teaching staff in aided schools in the ‘Shalarth’ system. They further explained that the ‘Shalarth’ system, launched on November 7, 2012, required principals of schools to upload staff data. Verification and validation were then carried out by various officers and pay units.

Education officers, like Wanjari, were only required to sign the data and were not responsible for verifying or validating it. Therefore, they argued, Wanjari’s role was limited and unrelated to the petitioner’s salary in this matter.

Advertisement
Advertisement