Sarika Jeevan Patil vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Sec. School Education Dept and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sarika Jeevan Patil vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Sec. School Education Dept and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned rejection orders quashed and set aside solely to facilitate proper scrutiny and verification in the light of Kum. Ratna Ramesh Salunke (WP 6949 of 2025); Education Officer to issue seven-day notice, obtain Affidavit on Pavitra Portal status and login ID allocation, carry out verification per due procedure and the said dictum, and pass a reasoned order expeditiously upon the Management's cooperation.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned orders rejecting the approval proposals, passed by the Education Officers after raising objections and pointing out deficiencies without granting the Management an opportunity to cure the deficiencies or explain away the objections, were sustainable. +1 more

Court's answer

The Education Officers (Shri. Kamlakant Mhetre and Shri. Bhausaheb Karekar) passed the orders of rejection of the proposals after raising objections and pointing out deficiencies, without granting the Management an opportunity to cure the deficiencies or explain away the objections, and this position is undisputed.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned orders are set aside only for the purpose of facilitating a proper scrutiny and verification in the light of the law laid down in Kum. Ratna Ramesh Salunke & Ors. (Supra); all three Writ Petitions are partly allowed and the impugned orders are quashed and set aside with directions.

Key takeaways

Direction (a): the Education Officer shall issue a notice to the Management calling upon it to remain present before his Office, with a clear seven days notice period.ratio¶4(a)
Direction (b): the notice shall direct the Management to submit an Affidavit in each case declaring whether the Pavitra Portal was active when the Petitioners were appointed.ratio¶4(b)
Direction (b): if the Pavitra Portal was active, the Affidavit must additionally state whether a login ID was allocated to the Management.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ravindra V. Ghuge & Abhay J. Mantri, JJ.), 6th February, 2026 - Writ Petition Nos. 16434, 16440 and 16439 of 2024 (Sarika Jeevan Patil; Gayatri Sachin Sathe; Vaishali Sachin Jagtap v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.). Identical orders of the Education Officers (Shri. Kamlakant Mhetre and Shri. Bhausaheb Karekar) rejecting proposals for approval of appointments - one ground being that the appointments were made de-hors the Pavitra Portal - were challenged. Holding: the rejection orders were passed after raising objections and pointing out deficiencies without granting the Management an opportunity to cure the deficiencies or explain away the objections, a position described as undisputed; the impugned orders were therefore quashed and set aside ONLY to facilitate proper scrutiny and verification in the light of the law laid down in Kum. Ratna Ramesh Salunke & Ors. (Writ Petition No.6949 of 2025). Directions: (a) Education Officer to issue notice with a clear seven days notice period; (b) Management to file an Affidavit declaring whether the Pavitra Portal was active when the Petitioners were appointed and, if active, whether a login ID was allocated; (c) further scrutiny and verification per due procedure and the Salunke dictum after the Affidavit is filed; (d) reasoned order on the proposals to be passed expeditiously if the Management cooperates. All three Writ Petitions partly allowed. No statute was construed; no quantum involved.

904-WP-16434-2024.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.16434 OF 2024

Sarika Jeevan Patil

….Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

….Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 16440 OF 2024

Gayatri Sachin Sathe

….Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

….Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 16439 OF 2024

Vaishali Sachin Jagtap ….Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents

Mr. Satish Raut, Advocate for the Petitioner in all the Petitions. Ms. Pooja Joshi Deshpande, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in WP/16434/2024.

Mr. S.P. Kamble, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3-State in WP/16440/2024.

Ms. N.M. Mehra, AGP, for the Respondent-State in WP/16439/2024.

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE : 6^th FEBRUARY, 2026

1 of 4

Kartikeya

904-WP-16434-2024.odt

P.C. :-

An identical order has been passed in all these three matters for rejecting the proposal for seeking approval. One of the conditions is that the appointments were made de-hors the Pavitra Portal.

The learned AGP submits that this Court has delivered a Judgment in Kum. Ratna Ramesh Salunke & Ors. V/s. the State of Maharashtra & Ors. , in Writ Petition No.6949 of 2025, whereby the Management first has to file an Affidavit, declaring that the Pavitra Portal was inactive and, in the event the Pavitra Portal was active, whether a login ID was not allocated to the Management.

We have perused the impugned orders, which contain several other objections. The Education Officers, namely Shri. Kamlakant Mhetre and Shri. Bhausaheb Karekar, have passed the orders of rejection of the proposal, after raising objections and pointing out deficiencies, without granting an opportunity to the Management to cure the deficiencies or to explain away the objections. This position is undisputed.

2 of 4

Kartikeya

904-WP-16434-2024.odt

In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside, only for the purpose of facilitating a proper scrutiny and verification, in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Kum. Ratna Ramesh Salunke & Ors. (Supra) . For the said purpose, all these Writ Petitions are partly allowed . The impugned orders are quashed and set aside, with the following directions :

(a) The Education Officer would issue a notice to the Management, calling upon it to remain present before his Office, with a clear seven days notice period.

(b) The Education Officer would mention in the notice, by way of a direction to the Management, to submit an Affidavit in each of these cases, declaring whether the Pavitra Portal was active when these Petitioners were appointed. If the Pavitra Portal was active, the Affidavit would also contain a statement as to whether the login ID was allocated to the Management.

(c) After the filing of the Affidavit in each of these cases by the Management, further scrutiny and verification would

3 of 4

Kartikeya

904-WP-16434-2024.odt

be carried out by following the due procedure laid down in law and the dictum of this Court set out in Kum. Ratna Ramesh Salunke & Ors. (Supra) .

(d) If the Management co-operates in the said verification exercise in the light of the above directions, the Education Officer would pass an appropriate reasoned order on the proposals after completing such exercise, expeditiously.

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

4 of 4

Kartikeya