Disposed

Saraswati Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Gadchandur through Secretary Namdeoral S. Bobde and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Department of School Education, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC20 Mar 2024WP/299/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition seeking approval of a teacher's appointment made without departmental approval and not through Pavitra Portal. Following the coordinate bench's common judgment, directions issued to consider proposals on merit and not reject them merely for non-use of the portal.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the Education Officer/Deputy Director to consider approval proposals on merit, not rejecting them for non-use of Pavitra Portal; decision within eight weeks.

Saraswati Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Gadchandur… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:3496-DB

¶2

1/4 8-wp-299-21(j).odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 299 OF 2021

¶5

Saraswati Shikshan Prasaarak Mandal, Gadchandur through its Secretary, Namdeorao S. Bobde, aged 57 years, Office at Savitribai Fule Junior College, Gadchandur, Tal. Korpana, District Gadchiroli.

¶6

Savitribai Fule Junior College, Gadchandur through its Principal, Dattatraya G. Chaudhari, aged 57 years, Gadchandur, Tal. Korpana, District Chandrapur

¶7

Nitin Ashok Surpam, aged 35 years, Occ. Service R/o Teacher’s colony, Gadchandur, Tal. Korpana, District Chandrapur

¶8

...Petitioners

¶9

// VERSUS //

¶10

The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Department of School Education and Sports, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032

¶11

The Director of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, State of Maharashtra, Central Building, Pune 410001

¶12

The Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Balbharati, Opposite Dhantoli Park, Dhantoli, Nagpur 440012 ... Respondents

¶13

Shri B.G.Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.A.Thakare, AGP for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.

¶14

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, AND SMT. M.S.JAWALKAR, JJ. DATED : 20^th MARCH, 2024.

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER : ANIL S.KILOR, J.]

¶16

Sknair

¶17

2/4 8-wp-299-21(j).odt

¶18

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

This petition pertains to grant of approval to the appointment of petitioner no.3 by the petitioner no.1 Society on the ground that appointment was made without approval of the Education Department and was not made through Pavitra Portal system.

¶20

On the question of facts and law, the present petition is squarely covered by the common judgment dated 13^th March, 2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5245 of 2018 and another connected matters, wherein it is held thus:

¶21

“31. Be that as it may, in these petitions, nothing is brought to our notice by the respondents to suggest that the appointments were made after the activation of the Pavitra Portal. The submission canvassed on behalf of the concerned authority is that no advantage can be taken by the petitioners of the interim orders rendered by the High Court, unless the petitioners – managements establish membership of the association which was party to the petition/s. The extension of the submission is that if the petitioners – managements are not either parties or members of the association which approached the High Court, the appointments made without seeking the permission of the appropriate authority cannot be approved.

¶22

Considering the rival submissions, we are inclined to hold that the managements which have made the appointments on the strength of the interim orders of the High Court in Writ Petition 4684/2017 and Writ Petition 5059/2017 and/or in connected matters were not required to seek the permission of the appropriate authority, if the managements were party/parties individually or as members of the association which approached the High Court. We are further inclined to hold that during the period the Pavitra Portal was not functional, no

¶23

Sknair

¶24

3/4 8-wp-299-21(j).odt

¶25

fault can be found with appointments made dehors the Pavitra Portal and approvals to appointments made shall not be rejected on the ground that the appointments are not made through the Pavitra Portal. The appropriate authority shall have to consider or reconsider, as the case may be, the proposals consistent with the observations supra.”

¶26

In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the mode adopted by this Court in the above said writ petitions shall be adopted in the present matter. Accordingly, we partly allow the writ petition and issue the following directions

¶27

(i) The Education Officer or the Deputy Director of Education, as the case may be, shall consider or reconsider, the proposals seeking approval to the appointments of the petitioners – teachers on merit and in accordance with law.

¶28

(ii) The proposals shall not be rejected on the ground that the appointments are not made through Pavitra Portal system, if the appointments are made on the strength of interim orders of the High Court or during the period when the Pavitra Portal was not functional.

¶29

(iii) The proposals submitted by the managements, who were parties to Writ Petition 4684/2017 and Writ Petition 5059/2017 and/or connected matters, either individually or as members of the petitioner – association, shall not be rejected on the ground that appointments were made without seeking the permission of the appropriate authority. However, the managements, who were not parties individually, will have to establish their membership of the petitioner – association.

¶30

Sknair

¶31

4/4 8-wp-299-21(j).odt

¶32

(iv) The petitioners shall produce copy of this judgment before the appropriate authority which shall take appropriate decision after hearing all the stakeholders including the intervenors, who may wish to be heard, within eight weeks from the production of the copy of the judgment.

¶33

The writ petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms.

¶34

The civil application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶35

[ M.S.JAWALKAR, J.] [ANIL S. KILOR, J.]

¶36

Sknair

Saraswati Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Gadchandur through Secretary Namdeoral S. Bobde and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Department of School Education, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saraswati Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Gadchandur through Secretary Namdeoral S. Bobde and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Department of School Education, Mumbai 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

The State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary Deptt of Agriculture Animal Husbandry Dairy Devp Mumbai Vs Dilip Vitthalrao Wandile

Adv. Ghanshyam S/O Shyamrao Kapgate and Others Vs Assistant Charity Commissioner, Bhandara and Others

Sai Secutiy Services, Thr. P.O.a., Shri. Dipak Suresh Chavan Vs Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee, Amravati Thr. Chairman/ Secretary and Ors.

Ashutosh S/O Madanmohanlal Jaiswal and Another Vs Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur Thr. Its Municipal Commissioner and Another

Miss. Roshani Sitaram Kasdekar Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Revenue and Forest, Mah. State, Mumbai and Ors.

National Decoration Works through Its Prorietor, Nagpur Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Chief Secretary, Mumbai