Bombay High Court

MANDAR MANGESH TENDOLKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA THR SECRETARY

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The order rejecting the petitioner's appointment proposal is set aside, and the management must be given a reasonable opportunity to cure the deficiencies before a final decision is made.

Summary

The petitioner, appointed as an assistant teacher, challenged the Education Officer's order rejecting his appointment proposal on the ground of alleged deficiencies. The rejection was based on the requirement to use the Pavitra Portal recruitment process, which was reportedly non‑functional at the relevant time. The petitioner argued that the management was not given a chance to remedy the cited deficiencies, contrary to established judicial pronouncements. The court held that the order rejecting the proposal was unlawful as no opportunity to cure the deficiencies was afforded. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order, directed the management to rectify the deficiencies within three weeks, and ordered a hearing before the Education Officer. The petition was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the Education Officer must provide the management an opportunity to remedy deficiencies before rejecting an appointment proposal.
Whether the non‑functioning of the Pavitra Portal justifies the rejection of the appointment under the 2017 Government Resolution.
Whether the Apex Court has jurisdiction over matters concerning the Pavitra Portal recruitment process.

Subjects

appointment
education officer
Pavitra Portal
recruitment process
writ petition
administrative law
opportunity to be heard
government resolution

Judgment

37-WP-7002-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 7002 OF 2024

Mandar Mangesh Tendolkar ...Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents.
——————
Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioner.
Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondents-State.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : August 19, 2026.
P. C. :

1. By the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 5 th of

April 2023, passed by the Education Oicer, noting deiciency in the

proposal submitted by the Respondent-Management for seeking

approval to the appointment of the Petitioner.

2. The Petitioner claims to have been appointed against a vacancy

being created by reason of retirement of the Assistant Teacher on 30 th

September 2019. On 3rd June 2022, the Respondent No.6-Educational

Institution intimated the vacant posts and sought permission from the

Respondent No.5-Education Oicer for issuance of advertisement,

which came to be refused on 13 th July 2022, in view of the Pavitra Portal

recruitment process being implemented through Government

Resolution dated 23rd June 2017.

Gaikwad RD 1 of 3
37-WP-7002-2024.doc

3. The Petitioner claims that as the Pavitra Portal was not functional

at the relevant time, advertisement was published by the Respondent

No.6 to which the Petitioner applied and was selected. The appointment

order was issued on 5th August 2022 to the Petitioner and on 29th March

2023, the Headmaster of the Respondent No.7-School submitted the

proposal for individual approval to the appointment of the Petitioner,

which came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 9th May 2023.

4. We have perused the impugned order dated 9 th May 2023, which

rejects the proposal by citing certain deiciencies. Upon perusal of the

order, it is evident that no opportunity was given to the Management to

comply with the deiciencies set out in the impugned order dated 9 th

May 2023.

5. Mr. Bhavake would submit that the issue of the non-functioning of

the Pavitra Portal is settled by various decisions of this Court and

despite thereof, the Education Oicer disregards the said decisions.

Learned AGP-Mr. Kalel would submit that the Honb’le Apex Court is

seized of the matter of Pavitra Portal.

6. The Management is required to be given an opportunity of

complying with the deiciencies cited in the order dated 9 th May 2023,

before the rejection of the proposal.

7. It is open for the parties to submit the judicial pronouncements

Gaikwad RD 2 of 3
37-WP-7002-2024.doc

for consideration of the Education Oicer, who shall decide the

application in accordance with the judicial pronouncements.

8. To the extent that the impugned order rejects the proposal of the

Petitioner the order is set aside. The Management is directed to comply

with the deiciencies within a period of three weeks from today.

9. Upon deiciencies being complied with, the Education Oicer to

decide the application, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all

parties.

10. The Petition is allowed in the above terms.

[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Digitally
signed by
RAJU
RAJU DATTATRAYA
DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD Date:
2026.08.19
20:53:20
+0530

Gaikwad RD 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…