Bombay High Court
Gutam Bhagwan Sonawane vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 15 September, 2021
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, S. G. Mehare
923-wp-1868-2018.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
923 WRIT PETITION NO.1868 OF 2018
GUTAM BHAGWAN SONAWANE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Patil Paresh B.
AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. S.B. Yawalkar
Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mrs. A.N. Ansari
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
S.G. MEHARE, J.J.
DATED : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2021
PER COURT :-
1. On 17.08.2021 after hearing in the matter was concluded,
we had passed the following order:
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 Ofcer (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 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
923-wp-1868-2018.odt
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 fnd 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
Sonawane (supra).
5. List this petition on 15.09.2021 as "part-heard".
2. Today, the learned advocate has made an efort to
distinguish the view taken by us in Dipak Macchindra Sonawane vs.
The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No.2920/2020.
Considering the facts of this case, we fnd that it has been a futile
exercise on his part.
3. He, therefore, submits that in future if any vacancy arises
and the petitioner is covered by the Government Resolution dated
23.06.2017 and the petitioner applies through Pavitra Portal, the
respondents would consider his candidature if there is no legal
impediment.
923-wp-1868-2018.odt
4. The learned advocate for respondent no.3 submits that if
such an application fled by the petitioner is found to be in order and if
there is no legal impediment, the same would be considered in
accordance with the rules and procedure applicable.
5. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of.
(S.G. MEHARE. J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Mujaheed//
