Dismissed

Gutam Bhagwan Sonawane v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC15 Sept 2021WP/1868/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad dismissed the writ petition challenging refusal of appointment approval. The court held that prior judgments mandate a Teachers Aptitude Test for all recruits, rendering direct recruitment without this test non-compliant and thus unapprovable.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; petitioner's application for future vacancies conditional on legal process followed.

Gutam Bhagwan Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

923-wp-1868-2018.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

923 WRIT PETITION NO.1868 OF 2018

¶4

GUTAM BHAGWAN SONAWANE VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶6

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Patil Paresh B. AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. S.B. Yawalkar Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mrs. A.N. Ansari

¶7

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

¶8

S.G. MEHARE, J.J.

¶9

DATED : 15^th SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶10

PER COURT :-

¶11

On 17.08.2021 after hearing in the matter was concluded,

¶12

we had passed the following order:

¶13

We have heard the learned advocate for the petitioner, the learned AGP on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mrs. Ansari, learned advocate for respondent No.3, for quite some time. With their assistance, we have gone through the petition paper book.

¶14

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.12.2017 passed by the Education Ofcer (Secondary) refusing to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner, which is dated 18.08.2017. Surplus teachers were yet to be absorbed. By the Government Resolution dated 23.06.2017, the State Government prepared the “Pavitra Portal” (the portal which is visible to all interested candidates for recruitment of teachers) in the light of the judgment dated 24.06.2015 delivered by this Court at Nagpur in Public Interest Litigation No.8/2015 thereby, mandating the Teachers Aptitude and Intelligence Test (TAIT) as a pre-condition for enlisting them as against available vacancies on the Pavitra portal. This

¶15

1/3

¶16

923-wp-1868-2018.odt

¶17

being the mandate of law, direct recruitments in violation of the Government Resolution dated 23.06.2017 have not been approved by the Education Department, much less by this Court. There are instances, according to the petitioner, when the PIL judgment (supra) was not pointed out to this Court and approvals were granted.

¶18

We have recently delivered the judgment dated 28.07.2021 in the matter of Dipak Macchindra Sonawane vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No.2920/2020 by taking into account the entire scheme of recruitment prescribed by the Government Resolution dated 23.06.2017. This being the law, we do not fnd that this petition could be entertained or the impugned order could be branded as being perverse or erroneous.

¶19

The learned advocate for the petitioner prays for a short adjournment to go through the Government Resolution dated 23.06.2017 and the judgment of this Court in Dipak Sonawane (supra).

¶20

List this petition on 15.09.2021 as “part-heard”.

¶21

Today, the learned advocate has made an efort to distinguish the view taken by us in Dipak Macchindra Sonawane vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No.2920/2020. Considering the facts of this case, we fnd that it has been a futile exercise on his part.

¶22

He, therefore, submits that in future if any vacancy arises and the petitioner is covered by the Government Resolution dated 23.06.2017 and the petitioner applies through Pavitra Portal, the respondents would consider his candidature if there is no legal impediment.

¶23

2/3

¶24

923-wp-1868-2018.odt

¶25

The learned advocate for respondent no.3 submits that if such an application fled by the petitioner is found to be in order and if there is no legal impediment, the same would be considered in accordance with the rules and procedure applicable.

¶26

In view of the above, this petition is disposed of.

¶27

(S.G. MEHARE. J.)

¶28

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶29

Mujaheed//

¶30

3/3

Gutam Bhagwan Sonawane v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gutam Bhagwan Sonawane v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Sayanna Piraji Mathamwar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sandip Prakash Thorat Vs the Union of India and Others

Shamsundar Munde Pratishthan through Its President Dattatraya Vitthalrao Balutkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gulabbee Syed Pasha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Santosh Rangnath Kakde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Akram Khan Burhan Khan Vs the Zilla Parishad Jalgaon and Another