Gutam Bhagwan Sonawane vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 11118 Bom

                                      *1*                  19wp1868o18


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  WRIT PETITION NO.1868 OF 2018
                  GUTAM BHAGWAN SONAWANE
                                VERSUS
            THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                     ...
             Advocate for the Petitioner : Shri Patil Paresh B.
             AGP for Respondents 1 and 2 : Shri S.G.Sangle
              Advocate for Respondent 3 : Mrs.A.N.Ansari
                                     ...
                             CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
                                                   &
                                          S.G. MEHARE, JJ.

DATE :- 17th August, 2021 Per Court :-

1. We have heard the learned advocate for the

petitioner, the learned AGP on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2

and Mrs.Ansari, learned advocate for respondent No.3, for quite

some time. With their assistance, we have gone through the

petition paper book.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated

28.12.2017 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary) refusing

to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner, which is

dated 18.08.2017. Surplus teachers were yet to be absorbed. By

the Government Resolution dated 23.06.2017, the State

Government prepared the "Pavitra Portal" (the portal which is

visible to all interested candidates for recruitment of teachers) in

*2* 19wp1868o18

the light of the judgment dated 24.06.2015 delivered by this

Court at Nagpur in Public Interest Litigation No.8/2015 thereby,

mandating the Teachers Aptitude and Intelligence Test (TAIT) as

a pre-condition for enlisting them as against available vacancies

on the Pavitra portal. This being the mandate of law, direct

recruitments in violation of the Government Resolution dated

23.06.2017 have not been approved by the Education

Department, much less by this Court. There are instances,

according to the petitioner, when the PIL judgment (supra) was

not pointed out to this Court and approvals were granted.

3. We have recently delivered the judgment dated

28.07.2021 in the matter of Dipak Macchindra Sonawane vs. The

State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No.2920/2020

by taking into account the entire scheme of recruitment

prescribed by the Government Resolution dated 23.06.2017. This

being the law, we do not find that this petition could be

entertained or the impugned order could be branded as being

perverse or erroneous.

4. The learned advocate for the petitioner prays for a

short adjournment to go through the Government Resolution

dated 23.06.2017 and the judgment of this Court in Dipak

*3* 19wp1868o18

Sonawane (supra).

5. List this petition on 15.09.2021 as "part-heard".

kps (S.G. MEHARE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)