Quashed

Kamlakar Pratap Padmar v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Bombay HC21 Jun 2024WP/1212/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order rejecting a teacher's appointment proposal for adhering to a 2017 Government Resolution mandating the Pavitra Portal for recruitment, citing prior rulings allowing individual case approvals.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 14.01.2019 is quashed and matter remanded to the Education Officer to decide afresh, considering relevant judgments and by extending opportunity of hearing to all parties.

Kamlakar Pratap Padmar Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:11468

¶2

1 wp 1212.23

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1212 OF 2023

¶5

Kamlakar Pratap Padmar .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶8

Shri V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri K. S. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri Y. G. Birajdar, Advocate h/f Shri A. P. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶9

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ. DATE : 21 JUNE, 2024.

¶10

FINAL ORDER ( Per Shailesh P. Brahme, J. ) :-

¶11

. Heard both the sides finally.

¶12

Petitioner is seeking declaration that his appointment is in accordance with law and further seeking direction for quashment of order dated 14.01.2019 passed by the respondent No. 3/Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule rejecting the proposal of the petitioner seeking approval to his appointment. Only reason cited by the Education Officer in his letter/order dated 14.01.2019 is that the procedure as contemplated by G. R. dated 23.06.2017 has not been followed for the recruitment of the petitioner.

¶13

2 wp 1212.23

¶14

There is no objective assessment of the proposal by the Education Officer. We have already taken a view vide order dated 10.06.2024 in Writ Petition No. 13150 of 2022 in the matter of Shaikh Jaweria Khadarsab Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others . Following are the observations :

¶15

“4. We are pointing out the aforementioned state of affairs in juxtaposition to the various orders passed by this Court, whereby in view of the fact that in spite of Government Resolution dated 23.06.2017, at no point of time recruitment process was undertaken through Pavitra Portal and the directions were issued to consider the individual cases for grant of approval, ignoring the fact that the recruitment was undertaken de hors the Pavitra Portal.

¶16

Pertinently, it is also being pointed out that by a circular dated 07.07.2023, the Ministry of School Education had instructed all the Divisional Commissioners, Chief Officers and the Commissioner of Education, inter-alia pointing out that due to pendency of several writ petitions, the recruitment process could not be undertaken through Pavitra Portal in a timely manner resulting in there being shortage of eligible teachers to impart education. Permission was granted to make appointments on contractual and temporary basis on payment of some honorarium. This is clearly indicative of the fact that even the State has been aware that the Pavitra Portal could not be put to desired use irrespective of the objective with which it was issued.

¶17

Additionally, the petitioner has annexed several approval orders granted to individual teachers who have been appointed after the Government Resolution dated 23.06.2017 was passed.”

¶18

3 wp 1212.23

¶19

It was expected of the Education Officer to examine the proposal considering prior permission, availability of post, advertisement and eligibility of the petitioner. The impugned order is unsustainable for want of detailed discussion and in the wake of our decision in Shaikh Jawaria (supra).

¶20

Therefore, we dispose of the writ petition by quashing the impugned order dated 14.01.2019 passed by the respondent No. 3/Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule and relegate the matter back to the respondent No. 3/Education Officer for deciding afresh.

¶21

The respondent No. 3 shall consider the proposal afresh, by considering the relevant judgment, policy, norms of recruitment and by extending opportunity of hearing to all the parties. However, he shall not reject the proposal on the same grounds which are quoted in the impugned order.

¶22

The decision shall be taken as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of four (04) weeks from today.

¶23

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ]

¶24

bsb/June 24

Kamlakar Pratap Padmar v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlakar Pratap Padmar v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Kesharsingh Tasewal Vs the Chairman Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Others

Ganga Public School Batsar through Its Chairman or Secretary or Principaland Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Atma Malik International School through Its Principal Vs the State of Maharashtra Primary Education Department and Others

Chhatrapati Foundation Ashti Promoted Phoenix International English School and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary of School and Sport Department and Others

Kishor Annasaheb Kamble and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Vinita Rajaram Rulsamudra and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others