Rajesh S/O Padmakar Bhangale And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12397 Bom

1/4                                               Judg.36.wp.2187.2020



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                 WRIT PETITION NO. 2187 OF 2020

1.    Rajesh s/o Padmakar Bhangale
      Aged about 39 Years, Occupation-Service;
      R/o Tulsi Nagar, Buldana, Dist. Buldana.

2.    Swapnil Vijay Joshi
      Aged about 33 Years, Occupation-Service;
      R/o "Matoshree", Lande Layout, Buldana;
      District Buldana.                             ... PETITIONERS

                VERSUS

1.    The State of Maharashtra, Through its
      Secretary,  Department     of    School
      Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2.    The Education Officer (Secondary),
      Zilla Parishad, Buldana.

3.    Vilasrao Deshmukh Shikshan Prasarak Va
      Bahuuddessiya Sanstha, Buldana, through
      its President, 'Vidyavishwa', Wankhede
      Layout, Buldana.

4.    Rajiv Gandhi Military School and Junior
      College, Ajantha Road, Post Box No.32,
      Kolwad, Tah. & Dist. Buldana, Through its
      Principal.                                   ... RESPONDENTS


Mr. Purushottam Patil, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. A. A. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1
and 2.
Mr. Bhushan Dafle, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
 2/4                                                   Judg.36.wp.2187.2020



      CORAM       :    A. S. CHANDURKAR & ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.
      DATE        :    NOVEMBER 30, 2022.


ORAL JUDGMENT - [PER ANIL L. PANSARE, J.]

.          Heard Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr.
Madiwale, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Dafle, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3
and 4.


2.         Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.


3.         By this Petition, the Petitioners take exception to the order
dated 4/5/2020 passed by the Respondent No.2 - Education Officer,
thereby refusing to grant an approval to the appointment of Petitioners as
Assistant Teacher in the establishment of Respondent Nos.3 and 4.


4.         Pursuant to the advertisement dated 13th January, 2018
published in two Newspapers, the Petitioners were appointed as Assistant
Teacher in Respondent No.4 - School, which is run by the Respondent
No.3 - Society.


5.         Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the
proposal seeking approval to the appointment of the Petitioners has been
rejected solely on the ground that the names of the Petitioners were not
processed through the Pavitra Portal, as stipulated in Government
Resolution dated 23rd June, 2017.
 3/4                                                    Judg.36.wp.2187.2020



6.         Mr. Madiwale, the learned AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2
has referred to the aforesaid Government Resolution to contend that the
Management ought to have processed the appointment of the Petitioners
through Pavitra Portal. The same having not been done, he would
support the impugned order.


7.         Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the
Petitioners were appointed vide appointment letters dated 20 th January,
2018. The Pavitra Portal was not functional/activated at that time. The
Pavitra Portal was activated only on 20th June, 2018, and that therefore,
though the appointments were to be made in terms of Government
Resolution dated 23rd June, 2017, the Pavitra Portal being inoperative,
the appointments of the Petitioners, which otherwise are in accordance
with rules, could not have been processed through Pavitra Portal. He
further submits that the controversy is fully covered by the order dated
2nd July, 2019 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench at Aurangabad in Writ
Petition No.12701 of 2018.


8.         We have gone through the aforesaid order. It is appears to us
that similar question was raised in the said Petition. The Co-ordinate
Bench, after making categorical enquiry with the learned AGP, found that
the Pavitra Portal was not operative till 20 th June, 2018. The learned AGP,
before us, does not dispute the aforesaid status. The Co-ordinate Bench,
after considering the said status, has recorded its finding in paragraph
No.7 as under :


         "7.   Considering the above, the impugned order is quashed
                   4/4                                                        Judg.36.wp.2187.2020



                               and set aside. The Education Officer shall re-consider the
                               proposal seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner
                               and shall not reject it on the ground on which the impugned
                               order is passed. The same shall be decided expeditiously,
                               preferably within four months."


                  9.              We see no reason as to why similar course should not be
                  adopted in this case. We, accordingly proceed to pass following order.


                                                        ORDER

                  (i)       Writ Petition is allowed.


                  (ii)      The impugned order dated 4/5/2020 passed by the Respondent

No.2 - Education Officer is hereby quashed and set aside.

(iii) The Respondent No.2 - Education Officer shall re-consider the proposal seeking approval to the appointments of the Petitioners and shall not reject it on the ground of not processing the appointment through Pavitra Portal.

(iv) The process be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of this order.

10. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.

(ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.) Digitally Signed ByVIJAYA GOURISHANKAR YADAV Signing Date:02.12.2022 17:10 Yadav VG