[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Amar Prakashrao Dahane And Another vs The State Of Maha., Thr. Under Secy., ... on 21 January, 2026
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: M.S. Jawalkar
2026:BHC-NAG:1004-DB
J-wp4841.24 final.odt 1/11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No.4841 OF 2024
1. Amar Prakashrao Dahane,
Aged : 40 years,
Occupation : Teacher,
residing at Aadgoan,
Taluka : Morshi, District: Amravati.
2. Kiran Prakashrao Kale,
Aged : 49 years,
Occupation : Teacher,
residing at 233, Ramnagar
Ward 30 S.T. Depot Road,
Wardha District : Wardha. : PETITIONERS
...VERSUS...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Under Secretary,
Department of School Education and Sports,
having address at Mantralaya,
Mumbai: 400 032.
2. The Director of (Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education),
State of Maharashtra,
Central Building Pune.
3. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
Amendment carried out as 4. Yashwant Gramin Shikshan Sanstha,
per Court;s order dated Wardha Mahadevapura,
27.3.2025
District, Wardha-442 001. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. Vipul Bhise with Ms. Sakshi Tiwari, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mrs. Mrunal Naik, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent
Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. S.K. Bhoyar, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
J-wp4841.24 final.odt 2/11
CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 12th JANUARY, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 21st JANUARY, 2026.
JUDGMENT :
(Per : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of the parties.
2. The petitioners by this petition are challenging the
communication dated 08.12.2023 issued by respondent No.3,
Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, thereby
rejecting to approve the appointment of the petitioners working
with aided private schools on the ground that the appointments
were not made in accordance with the Government Resolution
dated 23.06.2017 without conducting the appointment through the
Pavitra Portal.
3. The petitioners submitted that they are Teachers
appointed and continuously working at Yashwant Mahavidyalaya
(Junior College), Wardha, a 100% grant-in-aid institution. The
petitioner No.1 completed M.A. and B.Ed. in Economics in 2010,
thereafter obtained B.Ed. in Hindi in 2018, and acquired M.A. in
Hindi as a second subject in 2021. The petitioner No.2 completed
B.A. and M.P.Ed., thereafter obtained B.A. in Sociology in 2018,
and completed M.A. in Sociology in 2021. The petitioners
contended that both petitioners acquired the requisite qualification
in the second subject within the prescribed period of four years
from the date of appointment, strictly in accordance with the
Government Resolution dated 01.12.2005.
4. The petitioners submitted that they were appointed as
teachers pursuant to an advertisement issued by Yashwant Rural
Education Society, Wardha, for filling clear and vacant posts in the
Junior College. Prior approval for filling the posts of Economics-
Hindi and Sociology-Physical Education was granted by the Deputy
Director of Education on 25.02.2016. The petitioners applied for
the respective posts, were duly interviewed, selected, and
appointment letters were issued in November 2017. The petitioners
joined services in November 2017 and have been continuously
working since then.
5. The petitioners contended that despite continuous
service from 2017, approval to their appointments was not granted.
The respondent No.1, by communication dated 12.05.2023,
clarified that the appointments were made prior to implementation
of the Pavitra Portal and directed the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to
consider and grant approval in accordance with the Government
Resolution dated 13.03.2018.
6. It is further submitted that, by communication dated
12.10.2023, the Desk Officer, State of Maharashtra, referred to the
letter dated 12.05.2023 and called upon the respondent No.3 to
take appropriate action in accordance therewith.
7. The petitioners contended that thereafter, respondent
No.3, by impugned order dated 08.12.2023, rejected approval to
their appointments solely on the ground that the appointments
were not made through the Pavitra Portal pursuant to the
Government Resolution dated 23.06.2017, despite a clarification
and direction issued by the respondent No.1 on 12.05.2023 that the
petitioners' appointments were made prior to implementation of the
Pavitra Portal and were not governed by the said Government
Resolution.
8. It is contended by the petitioners that the present issue
is not res-integra and has been addressed by this Court in Writ
Petition No.5245 of 2018 (Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Ors. v.
Director of Education), where it was held that approvals cannot be
denied solely for not using the Pavitra Portal when it was
non-functional. On this ground alone, the impugned order dated
08.12.2023 deserves to be quashed.
9. The petitioners submit that the impugned order
mentions incomplete qualifications for the second subject at the
time of appointment. However, as per G.R. dated 01.12.2005,
candidates may complete the degree within four years of
appointment. In this case, the petitioners completed the second
degree within this period and have possessed all required
qualifications since 2021. Hence, this remark is baseless and
irrelevant.
10. It is further contention of the petitioners that the
impugned order also states that the reserved post was filled from
the 'Open Category'. The petitioners' posts were from Open
Category, and among six other posts, one reserved post was filled
from the open category. Despite this, the respondents cancelled the
appointments, leaving the seats vacant, as reflected in respondent
No.1's letter dated 12.05.2023.
11. The petitioners rely on the judgment in Shailesh
Deepak Amhare v. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No.4097 of
2019, dated 02.12.2021), wherein this Court held that restrictions
on recruitment under G.R. did not apply where no surplus teachers
were available and directed initial approval with arrears.
12. Per Contra, the respondent No.3 contends that the
Management and School are not parties, and the petition is liable to
be dismissed for non-joinder. Learned A.G.P. further contends that
permission dated 25.02.2016 was conditional for filling backlog
within two months from the date of permission but the process of
appointment started after lapse of 19 months and petitioners were
appointed in 2017, over a year later. Also the Deputy Director of
Education rejected the proposal for approval on 04.06.2020 on the
ground that appointments must be made through Pavitra Portal.
Further, it is also noteworthy that Communications dated
29.08.2017 and 27.09.2017 directed management to seek approval
through the Director of Education and to use Pavitra Portal. The
management appointed the Petitioners directly, contrary to policy.
13. Furthermore, despite repeated re-submissions by the
management, approvals for the Petitioners were finally rejected
through multiple orders (29.08.2017, 27.09.2017, 26.03.2018,
27.04.2018, and 04.06.2020). Government policy requires all
appointments to be made via Pavitra Portal to prevent backdoor
entry. This the management and not the Petitioners, is responsible
for non-compliance.
14. The respondent No.3 in its additional affidavit has
further contended that the petitioners' appointment itself is under
cloud with contradictory statements - petitioners claim that
appointment was based on permission dated 25.02.2016, while
Management's communication dated 19.04.2023 states that 8 posts
became vacant in 2015-17 and appointments were made after
advertisement published on 04-05.10.2017 without prior
permission.
15. The advertisement published on 04-05.10.2017 failed
to mention the permission/NOC, did not specify reserved and Open
Category posts, and incorrectly referenced letters dated 31.05.2017
and 09.06.2017 (actual date being 16.05.2017). Neither the
Government nor Deputy Director of Education granted permission
to fill these posts, confirming appointments were made without
proper authorization. Most critically, the approved point roster
dated 16.05.2015 and 30.06.2016 reveals that there was a backlog
of reserved category posts - 2 SC posts, 6 ST posts, 3 NT(D) posts
were vacant as of 31.03.2014. By 30.06.2016, 10 ST posts and 2
NT(D) posts remained vacant. Additionally, the management had
already made 16 excess appointments (420 persons against 404
sanctioned posts). The permission dated 25.02.2016 specifically
mandated filling backlog on priority basis, yet the management
appointed petitioners from open category, bypassing reserved posts.
16. Lastly, the respondent No.3 submits that the judgment
in Writ Petition No.5245/2018 is not applicable to the petitioners as
those appointments were made on ad-hoc basis pursuant to interim
orders during the pendency of Writ Petition No.5059/2017,
whereas petitioners' appointments were not made on any such
basis. Moreover, the rejection was not solely for non-use of Pavitra
Portal but other factors regarding the appointment which were
neglected.
17. Per Contra, the respondent No.4 in its reply has
vehemently denied the contentions raised by the respondent No.3
and submits that two posts of full-time Teachers for Physical
Education & Sociology and Economics & Hindi at Yeshwant Junior
College became vacant due to superannuation. The Society applied
for 'No Objection' on 01.09.2015, and permission was duly granted
by the respondent No.3 vide communication dated 25.02.2016 for
appointment of two Teachers on vacant and permanent basis,
thereby contradicting the assertion that appointments were made
without permission.
18. Contrary to the allegations of backlog violation, as per
the approved Roster for academic year 2015-2016, 7 posts from
Open Category in junior college were vacant. Since no Scheduled
Tribe candidate was available in response to the advertisement, the
respondent No.4 filled all posts from Open Category. The
petitioners were appointed on these two vacant and sanctioned
posts as per appointment letters dated 03.11.2017 and 20.11.2017
and have been working continuously since then.
19. The respondent No.4 subsequently registered in the
PAVITRA PORTAL system and appointed 7 Scheduled Tribe
candidates through the Portal, thereby completing the backlog of
Scheduled Tribe candidates. Thus, refuting the allegation of
non-compliance with reservation policy, the petitioners'
appointments were made on purely vacant and sanctioned posts
with due permission from the respondent No.3, and as no
Scheduled Tribe candidates were available, the posts were
legitimately filled from open category in accordance with law.
20. The controversy in the present matter is to be
adjudicated in the backdrop of these facts. The order impugned
dated 8.12.2023 primarily gives two reasons for rejection of
approval to the appointment of the petitioners. The first reason
being that the appointments are made after coming into force of the
Pavitra Portal. It is noteworthy to mention that admittedly
petitioners were appointed on 28.11.2017 and 3.11.2017. As has
been observed earlier by this Court in Writ Petition No.5245/2018
(Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and others Vs. Deputy Director of
Education, and other companion Writ Petitions vide its judgment
has categorically observed in para 30 as under :
"30. By now, it appears to be incontrovertible
that the Pavitra Portal was not functional at least
till 20-6-2018. In all fairness, we note that the
petitioners are not conceding that the Pavitra
Portal was activated on 20-6-2018 and would
submit, as was also submitted before the
Aurangabad Bench, that it was only in January,
2019, that the Pavitra Portal became operational."
21. Therefore, in view of this finding, a Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court held that during the said period the Pavitra Portal was
not functional. No fault can be found with appointments made
de hors the Pavitra Portal and approvals to the said appointments
made could not be rejected on the ground that they were not made
through the said Pavitra Portal. The Bench thereafter went on to
issue a direction that the proposals shall not be rejected on the said
ground when the Pavitra Portal was not functional. Thus, in our
view, clinches the first reason for rejection of approval.
22. The second reason as can be spelt out from the
impugned order that the Management has advertised the post to be
filled from Scheduled Tribes, but has appointed candidates from
Open Category and, therefore, there is a backlog of the roster. In
this regard, the response of the Management in their reply para 6
reproduced as under is noteworthy.
"6. The respondent no. 4 registered itself
in the PAVITRA PORTAL system of State
Government. It is specifically submitted that since
advertisement filed at page no. 156, the answering
respondent no. 4 has not appointed any ST
candidates with due approval of respondent no.3.
That the answering respondent no. 4 appointed 7 ST
candidates through PAVITRA PORTAL system and
has completed backlog of ST candidates................"
23. In that view of the matter, the backlog issue also loses
its significance. Thus, the petitioners have made out a case for
quashing and setting aside the order impugned.
24. We therefore, pass the following order :
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The order/communication dated 8.12.2023
issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division,
Nagpur thereby rejecting to approve the appointment of the
petitioners is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The respondent No.3 Deputy Director of
Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur is hereby directed to grant
approval to the appointments of the petitioners within four weeks
from the date of order.
(iv) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
wadode
Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 22/01/2026 17:58:44
