Bombay High Court
VAISHALI SACHIN JAGTAPversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court partially allows the petitions, quashes the impugned orders, and directs that the management be given notice and required to file an affidavit as per Kum. Ratna Ramesh Salunke precedent.
Summary
The Bombay High Court heard three identical writ petitions filed by Sarika Patil, Gayatri Sathe and Vaishali Jagtap challenging the rejection of their appointment proposals by Education Officers on the ground that the appointments were made de‑hors the Pavitra Portal. The petitioners argued that the officers denied them a chance to remedy the alleged deficiencies, contrary to the procedure laid down in Kum. Ratna Ramesh Salunke & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (WP 6949 of 2025), which requires the management to first file an affidavit about the status of the Pavitra Portal and any login ID allocation. The Court found that the officers indeed rejected the proposals without granting an opportunity to cure the defects. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned orders and partially allowed the petitions, directing the Education Officers to issue a seven‑day notice to the management, obtain the requisite affidavit, and then conduct a proper verification before passing a reasoned order. The directions aim to ensure compliance with the earlier precedent and procedural fairness.
Issues considered
- Whether the Education Officers erred in rejecting the appointment proposals without affording the management an opportunity to cure the deficiencies.
- Whether the impugned orders should be quashed in view of the procedural requirements laid down in Kum. Ratna Ramesh Salunke & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra.
- Whether the management must file an affidavit regarding the activity of the Pavitra Portal and allocation of login IDs before any further scrutiny.
Subjects
- Pavitra Portal
- appointment procedure
- education officer
- affidavit
- procedural fairness
- high court
- writ petition
- quashing order
Judgment
904-WP-16434-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.16434 OF 2024
Sarika Jeevan Patil ….Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 16440 OF 2024
Gayatri Sachin Sathe ….Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 16439 OF 2024
Vaishali Sachin Jagtap ….Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents
----
Mr. Satish Raut, Advocate for the Petitioner in all the Petitions.
Ms. Pooja Joshi Deshpande, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in
WP/16434/2024.
Mr. S.P. Kamble, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3-State in
WP/16440/2024.
Ms. N.M. Mehra, AGP, for the Respondent-State in
WP/16439/2024.
----
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 6th FEBRUARY, 2026
Kartikeya 1 of 4
904-WP-16434-2024.odt
P.C. :-
1. An identical order has been passed in all these three
matters for rejecting the proposal for seeking approval. One of the
conditions is that the appointments were made de-hors the Pavitra
Portal.
2. The learned AGP submits that this Court has delivered
a Judgment in Kum. Ratna Ramesh Salunke & Ors. V/s. the State
of Maharashtra & Ors., in Writ Petition No.6949 of 2025, whereby
the Management first has to file an Affidavit, declaring that the
Pavitra Portal was inactive and, in the event the Pavitra Portal was
active, whether a login ID was not allocated to the Management.
3. We have perused the impugned orders, which contain
several other objections. The Education Officers, namely
Shri. Kamlakant Mhetre and Shri. Bhausaheb Karekar, have passed
the orders of rejection of the proposal, after raising objections and
pointing out deficiencies, without granting an opportunity to the
Management to cure the deficiencies or to explain away the
objections. This position is undisputed.
Kartikeya 2 of 4
904-WP-16434-2024.odt
4. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside,
only for the purpose of facilitating a proper scrutiny and
verification, in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Kum.
Ratna Ramesh Salunke & Ors. (Supra). For the said purpose, all
these Writ Petitions are partly allowed. The impugned orders are
quashed and set aside, with the following directions :
(a) The Education Officer would issue a notice to the
Management, calling upon it to remain present before his
Office, with a clear seven days notice period.
(b) The Education Officer would mention in the notice, by
way of a direction to the Management, to submit an Affidavit
in each of these cases, declaring whether the Pavitra Portal
was active when these Petitioners were appointed. If the
Pavitra Portal was active, the Affidavit would also contain a
statement as to whether the login ID was allocated to the
Management.
(c) After the filing of the Affidavit in each of these cases
by the Management, further scrutiny and verification would
Kartikeya 3 of 4
904-WP-16434-2024.odt
be carried out by following the due procedure laid down in
law and the dictum of this Court set out in Kum. Ratna
Ramesh Salunke & Ors. (Supra).
(d) If the Management co-operates in the said verification
exercise in the light of the above directions, the Education
Officer would pass an appropriate reasoned order on the
proposals after completing such exercise, expeditiously.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Kartikeya 4 of 4
Checking your session…