Shri Swami Doulatgiriji Shikshan Sanstha and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary and Anr.

2. The Petition impugns the order dated 15^th September 2022 passed by the Respondent No.3 rejecting the proposal seeking approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.3 as Shikshan Sevak in Petitioner No.2- School.

¶17

3. The Petitioner possesses M.A., B.Ed qualiication and belongs to Open category. As the post of Shikshan Sevak fell vacant in Petitioner No.2-school, Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 informed Respondent No.3 about the vacancy and requested to take necessary steps to ill up the vacant post. There was no response by the Respondent No.3 and neither

¶18

1 of 4

¶19

Patil-SR

¶20

wp 6167-23.doc

¶21

surplus teacher was sent nor any step to ill up the said vacancy through Pavitra Portal was taken.

¶22

4. Ultimately, on 5^th April 2018, the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 issued advertisement in newspaper inviting applications from the eligible candidates for illing up the said post of Shikshan Sevak. The Petitioner No.3 being duly qualiied, applied in response to the said advertisement and was selected after following due procedure. The Petitioner No.3 was appointed vide appointment order dated 15^th June 2018 w.e.f. 15^th June 2018. On 10^th July 2022, the Petitioner No.2 submitted proposal to the Respondent No.3 seeking approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.3, which came to be rejected by the impugned order.

¶23

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the rejection of approval is only on the ground that the appointment of Petitioner No.3 was not done through Pavitra Portal. He submits that the issue is no longer res integra and has been settled by the decision dated 23^rd April 2025 of by this Court in Kalyansing Indrasing Rajput v. State of Maharashtra¹ where the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has recorded a factual inding that Pavitra Portal was not functional till June 2024 or even thereafter and as the Petitioner No.1 was appointed with efect from 15^th June 2018, the rejection cannot be on the ground that the

¶24

1 Aurangabad Bench W.P. 10205 of 2024 decided on 23-4-2025.

2 of 4

Patil-SR

wp 6167-23.doc

appointment was not made through Pavitra Portal.

¶29

6. Per contra Mr. S. B. Kalel, learned AGP submits that it was pursuant to the directions issued by by this Court at Nagpur Bench in PIL No. 8 of 2014 that online Pavitra Portal was introduced by the State Government vide Government Resolution dated 23^rd June 2017. He submits that there could not be any private recruitment process and all educational institutions were legally mandated to upload the recruitment process on SARAL Portal. He submits that subsequent decisions of this Court have also given directions to follow every mandatory procedure of recruitment conditions as per Pavitra Portal. He submits that in view of the decisions of this Court, since the appointment of Petitioner No.3 was through a private recruitment process, has been rightly rejected by the Respondent No.3.

¶30

7. There is no dispute about the fact that Petitioner No.3 is duly qualiied for appointment to the post of Shikshan Sevak. The rejection of the proposal submitted for approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.3 is on the sole ground that the recruitment process was not done through Pavitra Portal. The issue is no longer res integra and has been settled by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Kalyansing Indrasing Rajput v. State of Maharashtra (supra). There is a factual inding by the Co-ordinate bench that Pavitra Portal was not functional from 2017 until June 2024 and might be even thereafter.

3 of 4

Patil-SR

wp 6167-23.doc

Though Government Resolution dated 23^rd June 2017 and judicial decisions mandate the recruitment process to be done through Pavitra Portal in order to aford equal opportunity in employment, due to non functioning of Pavitra Portal at the time when vacancy arose and Petitioner No.3 came to be appointed, proposal submitted by Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 cannot be rejected on the sole ground that the recruitment process was not routed through Pavitra Portal. The impugned order is, therefore, unsustainable and Petition deserves to be allowed.

¶35

8. In the light of above, writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) which reads thus :

¶36

“(a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned Order dated 15^th September 2022 (being Exhibit "D" hereto) by Respondent No.3 herein and further be pleased to direct Respondent No.3 to grant approval to the appointment of the Petitioner No.3 as Shikshan Sevak in Respondent No.2 School with efect from 15^th June 2018 and as Assistant Teacher with efect from 15^th June 2021.

¶37

(b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus thereby directing Respondent No. 2 to enter the name of the Petitioner No.3 in the Shalarth System and issue Shalarth Identity to the Petitioner No. 3 and further be pleased to direct the Respondents to release grant in aid for the payment of monthly honorarium to the Petitioner from 15^th June 2018 to 14^th June 2021 and salary as per regular pay scale to the Petitioner No. 3 herein from 15^th June 2021 onwards with all consequential beneits.

¶38

9. Rule is made absolute in above terms.

¶39

[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

¶40

4 of 4

¶41

Patil-SR

Shri Swami Doulatgiriji Shikshan Sanstha and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Swami Doulatgiriji Shikshan Sanstha and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basavraj Dhondappa Chougule Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S Siddhanath Construction through Its Prop B M Erande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Suyash Pramod Thakur vs State of Maha. Dept of Tribal Devel. Thr. Sec. and Anr.

Kedarling Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Seva Sansatha Maryadit vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Devraj Narayan Biradar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kiran Bhima Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra through Dept. of Education and Ors.