Gayatri Sachin Sathe vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Sec. School Education Dept and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Gayatri Sachin Sathe 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 the law laid down in Kum. Ratna Ramesh Salunke (Supra), with directions: (a) seven-day clear notice to the Management; (b) Management affidavit on Pavitra Portal activity and login ID allocation; (c) further scrutiny per due procedure and the Salunke dictum; (d) expeditious reasoned order if the Management co-operates.

Issue for consideration

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

Court's answer

The Education Officers passed the orders of rejection after raising objections and pointing out deficiencies, without granting the Management an opportunity to cure the deficiencies or explain away the objections; this position is undisputed.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned orders are set aside only to facilitate proper scrutiny and verification in the light of the law laid down in Kum. Ratna Ramesh Salunke; all these 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)
Directions (b) and (c): 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 and, if active, whether a login ID was allocated to the Management; thereafter further scrutiny and verification shall follow the due procedure in law and the dictum in Kum. Ratna Ramesh Salunke (Supra).ratio¶4(b)
Direction (d): if the Management co-operates in the verification exercise, the Education Officer shall pass an appropriate reasoned order on the proposals expeditiously after completing the exercise.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Three writ petitions (Nos. 16434, 16440 and 16439 of 2024 - Sarika Jeevan Patil, Gayatri Sachin Sathe and Vaishali Sachin Jagtap v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) challenged identical orders of the Education Officers (Shri. Kamlakant Mhetre and Shri. Bhausaheb Karekar) rejecting proposals for approval, one condition cited being that the appointments were made de-hors the Pavitra Portal. Held: the rejections, passed after raising objections and pointing out deficiencies without granting the Management any opportunity to cure them or explain away the objections, could not stand. Petitions partly allowed; impugned orders quashed and set aside only to facilitate proper scrutiny in the light of the law laid down in Kum. Ratna Ramesh Salunke (W.P. No.6949 of 2025). Directions: (a) Education Officer to issue notice with clear seven days notice period; (b) Management to file affidavit declaring whether the Pavitra Portal was active at appointment and, if so, whether a login ID was allocated; (c) further scrutiny per due procedure and the Salunke dictum; (d) appropriate reasoned order expeditiously if the Management co-operates. Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge and Abhay J. Mantri, JJ.; decided 6 February 2026.

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