NAGNATH SAMBHAJI DHULEKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:15291-DB




                                                -1-
                                                                        wp1522.26.odt

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                WRIT PETITION NO. 1522 OF 2026

              Shri Nagnath s/o Sambhaji Dhulekar                 .. Petitioner

              versus

              The State of Maharashtra & others                  .. Respondents

              Mr. V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for the Petitioner.
              Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for the State.

                                             CORAM : SMT VIBHA KANKANWADI
                                                     & HITEN S VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
                                   RESERVED ON : 18th MARCH, 2026.
                                 PRONOUNCED ON : 10th APRIL, 2026.

              PER COURT :


              1.    Present petition has been filed to challenge the impugned order

              dated 24.03.2025 passed by Respondent No. 3 thereby rejecting the

              proposal for approval to the appointment of the Petitioner as

              Shikshan Sewak with effect from 10.06.2019 to 09.06.2022 and

              thereafter as Assistant Teacher in regular pay scale from 10.06.2022.



              2.    Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has taken us through the

              documents and submitted that the Petitioner is the employee working

              with Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. He possessed qualification of M.A.

              D.Ed. B.Ed. (English/Geography subject) and belongs to Nomadic

              Tribe category.   In view of the vacancy of the teachers had fallen,
                                -2-
                                                       wp1522.26.odt

Respondent No. 6 had published advertisement on 24.04.2019 and

25.04.2019 in daily newspaper “Ajanta Express” and “Mahasagar”.

The post that was fallen vacant was for teaching English/Geography

subject for 9th and 10th standards in Respondent No. 6 – school. After

the due procedure of interview, Respondent No. 5 passed a resolution

on 07.06.2019 to appoint the Petitioner from open category as the

post shown in the roaster was to that effect on 15.02.2019.       The

appointment order was issued to the Petitioner on 10.06.2019 and he

took charge on that day.    The Petitioner was given assignment to

teach 9th and 10th standards. Thereafter proposal was submitted by

Respondent No. 6 on 07.11.2019 to Respondent No. 3 seeking

approval to the appointment of the Petitioner. After a considerable

long time of 1 year 1 month and 8 days, the proposal came to be

rejected on 14.12.2020 on the ground that the appointment of the

Petitioner is not through Pavitra Portal. The Petitioner had preferred

Writ Petition No. 13419/2021 before this Court.       By order dated

13.08.2024, said petition came to be partly allowed. The matter was

relegated to Respondent No. 3 to consider the proposal afresh with a

direction that it shall not be rejected on the selfsame ground

mentioned in the impugned order. Now, after a gap, Respondent No.

3 has once again rejected the proposal on six different grounds. No
                                 -3-
                                                      wp1522.26.odt

opportunity was given either to the Petitioner or to the management

to give their statement or explanation.



3.    Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has then relied on the

decision in case of Jayshree d/o Anil Kadam and others vs. The State

of Maharashtra & others, Writ Petition No. 11311/2019 decided on

28.12.2024 wherein the point of not possessing TET qualification and

Pavitra Portal was considered. He further relied on judgment in case

of Dnyan Vikas Mandal vs. Parashram s/o Laxman Lokhande &

others, 1991 BCI 2 wherein it has been held that the requirement of

publishing notice in two newspapers is directory and not mandatory.



4.    Learned AGP sought accommodation to file detailed affidavit-in-

reply however, he relied on the order in case of The State of

Maharashtra & others vs. Shaikh Jaweria Khadarsab & others,

Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 10549/2025 dated

07.10.2025, wherein the data regarding TET examination was

produced before the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it is stated that

the results were declared on 01.03.2018 wherein about 1,71,348

candidates had appeared, however, no selection could be effected

through Pavitra Portal in the year 2017. Here, the appointment of

the Petitioner is of the subsequent date and the Petitioner is not
                                  -4-
                                                         wp1522.26.odt

qualified teacher as TET examination is compulsory in view of

judgment in case of Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. The State of

Maharashtra & others, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 861 as recently held by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court.



5.    Here, prima facie observation can be made that though this

Court, while disposing of the earlier Writ Petition filed by the

Petitioner had observed that the rejection should not be on the point

of Pavitra Portal, yet, it was the duty of Respondent No. 3 to give an

opportunity to the Petitioner as well as the management if there are

deficiencies in the documents. Now, as per Respondent No. 3, one of

the grounds for rejection is that the Petitioner is not qualified teacher

as he has not cleared TET examination to which the Petitioner is

coming with a case that his appointment was for 9 th and 10th

standards and TET examination is compulsory as per the Right to

Education Act i.e. for secondary school.      Now, this factual aspect

could have been gone into by Respondent No. 3 by giving an

opportunity      to    the      Petitioner    as     well     as     the

Respondent/management.        The other reason could have also been

explained and documents to that effect could have been produced by

the management. Only for such defects, the proposal ought not to
                                  -5-
                                                        wp1522.26.odt

have been rejected. Therefore, we are of the opinion that one more

chance is required to be given to the Petitioner as well as the

Respondent/management and the school to clear the defects, if any.

If still they fail, then Respondent No. 3 would be at liberty to pass

appropriate order.



6.    With these observations, we partly allow the petition.      The

impugned order dated 24.03.2025 passed by Respondent No. 3 is

hereby quashed and set aside.      Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 should

submit a fresh proposal to Respondent No. 3 in respect of

appointment of the Petitioner by clearing all the defects those are

mentioned in the impugned order dated 24.03.2025 within a period

of 15 days from today. After receipt of the said proposal, Respondent

No. 3 to proceed to decide the said proposal by giving an opportunity

to the Petitioner as well as Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 for placing their

case and documents, if any, apart from the proposal and then take a

final decision within a period of 8 weeks thereafter.



( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR )                    ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI )
      JUDGE                                           JUDGE

dyb