Sanjay Vishnu Bhagat and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Ors.

Ms. Priyanka Chavan, AGP for the Respondent/State in WP/447/25. Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP for the Respondent/State in WP/448/2025. Mr. Vaibhav Charalwar, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for the Respondent/State in WP/449/2025.

¶38

Ms. Kavita N. Kolunke, Addl. G.P. a/w Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for the Respondent/State in WP/451/2025.

¶39

Mr. A.K. Naik, AGP for the Respondent/State in WP/469/2025.

¶40

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE

¶41

&

¶42

ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ. DATE : 11^th NOVEMBER, 2025

¶43

2 of 5

¶44

SUNNY THOTE

¶45

(6-To-12)-WP-229-2025-(C).odt

¶46

P.C. :-

¶47

In these matters, the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Palghar, has passed identical orders concluding on a solitary point that, because the Petitioners were not recruited through the Pavitra Portal, approvals to their appointments cannot be granted. The learned AGPs point out that recently this Court has delivered a Judgment on 16^th October, 2025 in Writ Petition Nos.6949 of 2025, 6950 of 2025 and 10116 of 2025 (Kum. Ratna Ramesh Salunke & Ors. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.), concluding that Pavitra Portal is the only legal process through which recruitment can be made. If the Pavitra Portal is activated for any Institution and the Login-ID is also furnished to the Management, appointments cannot be made de-hors the Pavitra Portal.

¶48

In the impugned order, we do not find that the Education Officer has taken the efforts to verify as to whether the Pavitra Portal was activated and whether the Login-ID was furnished to the Management, namely Kudus Vibhag Shikshan Sevak Sangh Chinchghar, Post Kudus, Taluka Wada, District Palghar, which appointed these Petitioners.

¶49

3 of 5

¶50

SUNNY THOTE

¶51

(6-To-12)-WP-229-2025-(C).odt

¶52

In the absence of a specific scrutiny on this count, merely rejecting the proposal on the ground that the recruitment was not made through the Pavitra Portal, would result in miscarriage of justice. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to remit these matters to Respondent No.2/Education Officer (Secondary) to carry out an inquiry as regards whether the Pavitra Portal was activated and whether the Login-ID was allocated to the Management.

¶53

In view of the above, these Writ Petitions are partly allowed , only for the aforestated reason. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The proposals of these Petitioners are remitted to the office of Respondent No.2/Education Officer (Secondary).

¶54

The Management, which is before us as Petitioner No.2 in these matters, would file an affidavit sworn on oath before Respondent No.2/Education Officer (Secondary), within a period of 30 days from today, declaring whether the Pavitra Portal was activated with reference to its Institutions and whether the Login-ID was allocated to the Management. Based on the contents of the affidavit, Respondent No.2/Education Officer (Secondary) would

¶55

4 of 5

¶56

SUNNY THOTE

¶57

(6-To-12)-WP-229-2025-(C).odt

¶58

carry out a verification exercise. Needless to state, if the Pavitra Portal was activated and the Login-ID was made available to the Management at the time when the Petitioners were appointed, the Education Officer would be at liberty to follow the law laid down in Kum. Ratna Ramesh Salunke (Supra) . If the Pavtira Portal was inactive and no Login-ID was allocated to the Management, the Education Officer will consider each case on its own merits and pass a reasoned order.

¶59

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶60

5 of 5

¶61

SUNNY THOTE

Sanjay Vishnu Bhagat and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Vishnu Bhagat and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

K Raheja Corp Real Estate Private Limited vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Manoj Pardesi and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Dept. of Industries, Energy Labour and Mining and Anr.

Karunakaran Vadakkepat vs the Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation and Ors.

Dr. Prakash Tukaram Chaphekar and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prasad Dinkar Patil vs the Chief Executive Officer Zp and Anr.

Amol Bhagwandas Bairagi vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Urban Development Dept and Anr.