Bombay High Court
Pravin Bodhu Kasbe vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 3 August, 2021
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, S. G. Mehare
1 902-WP.3142-20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
902 WRIT PETITION NO.3142 OF 2020
PRAVIN BODHU KASBE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Rodge Pratap G.
AGP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar.
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Kadam Nitin S.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, AND
S. G. MEHARE, JJ.
DATE : 03.08.2021
ORAL ORDER (Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) :-
1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the
order dated 06.08.2018 passed by respondent No.2 - Education
Officer vide which the latter has declined to approve the
appointment of the petitioner as a Shikshan Sevak with effect
from 19.09.2017.
2. The petitioner contends that he had applied to
respondent No.3 - Management pursuant to an advertisement
dated 10.09.2017 published in daily 'Bahurangi Varta' inviting
applications from the schedule caste category for the post of
2 902-WP.3142-20.odt
Shikshan Sevak. The interviews were scheduled on
19.09.2017. The petitioner was interviewed, selected and
recommended for appointment as a Shikshan Sevak on
19.09.2017 itself and he immediately joined the said post on
the same day, 19.09.2017. This entire exercise is completed on
the same day.
3. On 26.04.2018, respondent No.4 - Head Master
forwarded the proposal of the petitioner for grant of approval
as a Shikshan Sevak. Since no decision was forthcoming, the
petitioner filed Writ Petition No.9020 of 2018 for seeking
directions to the Education Officer to do the needful. Vide
order dated 06.08.2018, this Court directed the Education
Officer to decide the pending proposal in accordance with law
and expeditiously. By the impugned order dated 06.08.2018,
which was passed on the same day on which this Court passed
an order, the Education Officer refused to accord his approval
to the appointment of the petitioner.
4. The petitioner contended that the Management had
forwarded three applications to the Education Officer, dated
03.07.2017, 01.08.2017 and 01.09.2017, for seeking
3 902-WP.3142-20.odt
permission to resort to a new recruitment process. Though
these applications were served on the office of the Education
Officer, no steps were taken and finally, the Management held
a special meeting on 06.09.2017 and decided to proceed to
publish an advertisement for selecting a Shikshan Sevak. On
10.09.2017, such an advertisement was published in daily
'Bahurangi Varta'. It is further contended that the selection of
the petitioner is strictly in accordance with the procedure laid
down by law. There is no ground for any suspicion. The
Education Officer cannot refuse approval to the petitioner. The
reasons assigned by the Education Officer are baseless.
5. We had extensively heard this matter on 02.08.2021. We
adjourned this matter for today only to find out whether the
official inward register of the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla
Parishad, Nanded would indicate the receipt of three purported
applications dated 03.07.2017, 01.08.2017 and 01.09.2017
sent by respondent No.3 - Management allegedly seeking
permission of the Education Officer to resort to a process for
recruitment of teachers.
6. Today, the original registers are produced before us by
4 902-WP.3142-20.odt
the learned advocate representing respondent No.2 -
Education Officer (Primary). He has himself gone through
every sheet of paper with reference to the date of the letters
being received by the inward department and the dates on
which such letters are received. He informs us that in the
entire inward register, which is intact and one would not find
any interpolation, the letters dated 03.07.2017, 01.08.2017
and 01.09.2017 have not been recorded. To be doubly sure,
we ourselves turned over every sheet of the paper of the
inward register and we did not find any entry with regard to
the three applications purportedly served by respondent No.3 -
Management upon the Education Officer.
7. We have undertaken the above exercise in view of the
strenuous submissions of the learned advocate representing
respondent No.2 that these three letters were never received by
the office of the Education Officer and there is no entry of the
said letters in the inward register. With this submission, it is
further contended that the Management may have created a
record to create an eye - wash that they had made three
applications to the Education Officer and that the Education
Officer did not respond to these applications and hence the
5 902-WP.3142-20.odt
Management, unilaterally proceeded to publish an
advertisement in daily newspaper 'Bahurangi Varta'. The
learned advocate for the Education Officer submits that the
department may not even have heard about such newspaper by
name 'Bahurangi Varta' in which the advertisement for filling
up the posts was purportedly published on 10.09.2017.
8. After considering the submissions of the learned
advocate for the respective sides before us, we have noticed the
following glaring factors :
(a) There is no evidence of the Management having
entered applications in the inward section of
respondent No.2 for seeking permission to resort to a
recruitment process.
(b) It cannot be ruled out that the stamp and some
signature of an unknown person may have been
obtained on the three applications placed before us to
create a picture that the Management had been
pursuing the Education Officer for permission and that
the Education Officer had sat over the three
applications.
6 902-WP.3142-20.odt
(c) The learned advocate for the petitioner alleges that
one Mrs. Garje from the inward department of the
Education Officer has signed on these three
applications.
(d) The alleged advertisement has been published in an
unknown daily newspaper 'Bahurangi Varta'.
(e) An advertisement does not appear to have been
published in two widely circulated vernacular
newspaper even in district Nanded, as required by law.
(f) Pursuant to the directions of this Court at it's Nagpur
Bench in Public Interest Litigation No.8 of 2015 on
24.06.2015, the Pavitra Portal was introduced by the
School Education and Sports Department, State of
Maharashtra through it's Government Resolution
dated 23.06.2017. The Pavitra Portal is to ensure a
portal to be visible for all the candidates interested in
the process of teachers' recruitment.
(g) Pursuant to the Government Resolution dated
23.06.2017, all such educational institutions including
7 902-WP.3142-20.odt
respondent No.4 herein were legally mandated to
upload the recruitment process on the SARAL Portal
and there could not have been a private recruitment
process.
(h) "SARAL" (Systematic Administrative Reforms for
Achievement in Learning by Students) was also
introduced by the Government vide Government
Resolution dated 23.06.2017 and the vacant positions
of teachers as well as the number of surplus teachers
was to be uploaded on SARAL website, as per Clause
3.1 of the Government Resolution.
(i) The surplus teachers were to be absorbed whenever
and wherever vacancies arose.
(j) The teachers' recruitment was permitted only through
the Pavitra Portal, as per Clause 3.2 of the said
Government Resolution.
(k) The said Government Resolution also prescribes at
Clause 3.4 that besides the Pavitra Portal, the
Management has to publish the advertisement in two
(2) newspapers having maximum circulation in the
8 902-WP.3142-20.odt
region and out of the two, one has to be a Marathi
Newspaper. So also, such recruitment process has to
be intimated to the District Social Welfare Department
and the Employment Exchange Department.
(l) Vide Clause 3.5, interested candidates had to apply
pursuant to the advertisement along with the chart of
their score acquired under T.E.T. (Teachers Eligibility
Test).
(m) There are several other conditions introduced in the
said Government Resolution which have mandatory
effect and this has been done by the State Government
pursuant to the order dated 24.06.2015 passed in the
Public Interest Litigation.
(n) Even a single glance at the advertisement at issue,
indicates that it had the nature of a walk in interview.
Candidates were called upon to attend the interview
between 10.00 to 4.00 p.m., on 18.09.2017. Besides
this one statement, there are no other conditions set
out in the advertisement, which is as vague as it could
be.
9 902-WP.3142-20.odt
(o) No record of the selection of the Petitioners (minutes
of the selection committee), were placed before the
Education Officer.
9. Considering the above, we find the entire recruitment
exercise to be highly suspicious and an eye wash. It appears
that the Management has instrumentalised the inward stamps
of the Education Department on it's three applications and by
publishing an advertisement in a practically unknown
newspaper, going against the mandate of the Government
Resolution dated 23.06.2017, has appointed the petitioner on
19.09.2017 for a period of only three (3) years. He was
appointed on a consolidated package of Rs.7,000/- per month
as a 'Shikshan Sevak' for a period of three (3) years.
Moreover, the view taken by the Education Officer in the
impugned order dated 06.08.2018 refusing to accord approval
to the appointment of the petitioner for a period of three (3)
years as a 'Shikshan Sevak' in the light of the advertisement
being suspicious and no details of the selection process having
been placed before the Education Officer, cannot be faulted.
10. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed. However,
10 902-WP.3142-20.odt
we find it appropriate to issue certain directions to the
Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, State of
Maharashtra as under :
(i) The Government Resolution dated 23.06.2017
shall be scrupulously followed without any
exception.
(ii) Rule 9 (2A) and (2B) of the Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of
Service) Regulation Rules, 1981, by which
amendment has been introduced pursuant to the
judgment in P.I.L. dated 24.06.2015, mandating
the publication of advertisement, besides the
Pavitra Portal, in two widely circulated
newspapers, out of which, one should be a local
newspaper having wide circulation in the region,
should be strictly implemented.
(iii) All Education Officers in the State of
Maharashtra and all concerned authorities shall
be directed by the department of School
Education that they shall scrupulously follow the
Government Resolution dated 23.06.2017 and
11 902-WP.3142-20.odt
Rule 9 (2A) and (2B) of the Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of
Service) Regulation Rules, 1981 and no
appointment in violation of any of these
provisions shall be approved.
(iv) The State Government should also intimate the
authorities that any person guilty of such
violation would be subjected to strict
disciplinary action. So also, action be initiated
against such Managements, who flout these
rules and the Government Resolution.
(v) The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Nanded is directed to initiate an inquiry by
appointing a Senior Officer from the Education
Department, to trace out as to who was the
person who has signed on the three applications
filed by the Management purportedly with the
Education Officer's Office (Primary), Zilla
Parishad, Nanded on 03.07.2017, 01.08.2017
and 01.09.2017 and initiate appropriate
disciplinary action, if the person who has signed
12 902-WP.3142-20.odt
in acknowledgment turns out to be an employee
of the Zilla Parishad.
11. The learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court shall place
a copy of this order before the Principal Secretary, Department
of School Education, State of Maharashtra so as to be
circulated to the concerned authorities, through out the State
for information and compliance.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
...
vmk/-
