KIRAN RAMKISHAN SALGARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:40212-DB




                                                 (1)                WP-8046-2021


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               WRIT PETITION NO. 8046 OF 2021

           Ms. Kiran d/o. Ramkishan Salgar
           Age: 26 years, Occu: Services
           as Shikshan Sevak R/o. at present
           at Sagroli, Tal. Biloli, Dist. Nanded.                ...Petitioner.
                        VERSUS
           1. The State of Maharashtra
           Through its Principal Secretary,
           School Education Department,
           Mantralaya Mumbai-32.
           2. The Deputy Director of Education
           Latur Division Latur.
           3. Sanskruti Samvardhan Mandal,
           Sagroli, Tal. Biloli, Dist. Nanded,
           Through its Secretary.
           4. Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji High Court
           and Junior College, Shardanagar,
           Sagroli, Tal. Biloli, Dist. Nanded.
           Through its Head Master.                             ...Respondents
                                               …..
           Mr. V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for petitioner.
           Mr. A. S. Shinde, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
           Mr. L. S. Shaikh h/f Mr. B. P. Ganore, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3
           and 4.
                                  CORAM                : KISHORE C. SANT &
                                                        AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.

                                 RESERVED ON           : 22nd JULY 2026.
                                 PRONOUNCED ON : 03rd SEPTEMBER 2026.
                                    (2)                   WP-8046-2021


JUDGMENT :- [PER: KISHORE C. SANT, J.]

1.    Heard Mr. Panpatte, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr.

Shinde, the learned AGP for Respondent/State and Mr. Ganore, learned

learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.


2.    Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties the

petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

3.    The present petitioner has approached this Court for quashing and

setting aside the order dated 15/03/2021 passed by Respondent

No.2/Deputy Director of Education, Latur Division Latur, thereby

refusing to grant approval to the appointment of petitioner as a

Shikshan Sevak and for releasing the arrears of salary. It is stated in the

letter of refusal that the appointment of the petitioner is made without

obtaining no objection certificate from the authority. It is further stated

that in view of Government decision dated 23/06/2017, the vacant posts

of Shikshan Sevaks are to be filled in only through Pavitra Portal.

4.    It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is having

qualification to be appointed to the post of Shikshan Sevak. She belongs

“Hatkar” caste which falls under the Nomadic Tribe (C) category. The
                                    (3)                     WP-8046-2021


respondent Nos.3 and 4 issued an advertisement in the newspaper

namely, “Daily Mahasagar” dated 30/05/2019 to fill up the post that

fallen vacant due to retirement of one Arun Upadhyay of Shikshan Sevak

in the subject of Physics in Respondent No.4/college. The advertisement

was also in respect of other posts as well. The petitioner was selected

after following process. The respondent/college sent a proposal to

respondent No.2 for filling up the vacancy. However, since there was no

reply/response    from    the      office   of     Deputy      Director,   the

Respondent/college    advertised     the    said   post.    The    respondent

No.3/management passed resolution dated 13/09/2019. The petitioner

thus came to be appointed on 06/08/2019. The Respondent

No.3/management sent a proposal seeking approval. It was clearly

stated that the petitioner was appointed on clear, vacant and sanctioned

post reserved for N.T. Category. However, by impugned order dated

15/03/2021, respondent No.2 refused to grant approval to her

appointment. The petitioner is thus before this Court.


5.   Mr. Panpatte, the learned Advocate for petitioner, vehemently

argued that the petitioner was appointed by following due process of
                                    (4)                  WP-8046-2021


law. The advertisement was issued only after finding that there was no

response from the Respondent No.2 to the application filed by the

management seeking permission to issue advertisement. He relied upon

the advertisement showing that the post of one Shikshan Sevak for

Physics subject was shown to be reserved for a person belonging to

Open/NT category, on consolidated honorarium of Rs.9,000/-. Though a

letter was sent by the Respondent/management to the Deputy Director

on 25/02/2019, still no reply was given. It was thus presumed that there

was no objection to publish the advertisement, and accordingly, the

advertisement was published. No fault can be found with the

management.


6.    In support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgment passed

by the Division Bench of this Court at principal seat at Mumbai in Writ

Petition No.8587 of 2016 and other connected writ petitions. He submits

that, in that case, the writ petitions were allowed in similar set of facts.

The impugned orders were quashed and set aside by directing the

education officers to examine the cases independently and grant

approval to each of the teachers in cases (i) where the recruitment
                                   (5)                 WP-8046-2021


process had commenced prior to Government Resolution dated

02/05/2012 (ii) where the appointments were made for filling up

vacancies for subjects English, Mathematics and Science and (iii) where

recruitment was made to fulfill the backlog of reserved category

candidates. He thus submits that same analogy needs to be applied in

the present case as well. It is because of the inaction in promptly

responding to the letter of the management that this situation has

arisen.


7.     He further relied upon the judgment in the case of Rajan Sahadeo

Ratul and Ors. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1 wherein it was held

that the management is within its rights to commence the selection

process in absence of any response from the Government, when no lapse

is pointed out in the selection procedure. In that view of the matter, the

order refusing approval was quashed and set aside. The petitioner thus

heavily relies upon these judgments. He further submits that the point of

roster was not in operation for considerable period, and for that

purpose, the management cannot be held to be at fault. To support this

1 2023 (6) Mh.L.J. 234
                                  (6)                  WP-8046-2021


contention, he relied upon one more judgment passed by this Court at

the Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No. 2187 of 2020 in the case of

Rajesh s/o. Padmakar Bhangale Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors..


8.   He further relied upon the communication dated 07.07.2023

issued by the Deputy Secretary, School Education and Sports Department

to the Commissioner (Education), State of Maharashtra, the Divisional

Commissioners of all divisions, and the Chief Executive Officers of all

Zilla Parishads. He submits that in view of said communication,

temporary appointments can be made till the Pavitra Portal starts

functioning properly. He submits that, considering the overall situation,

approval ought to have been granted.

9.   The learned AGP vehemently opposed the petition. He submits

that, before filling up the vacancies, no prior permission was sought by

the management from the authorities. Now, the recruitment is done

strictly in accordance with the policy of the Government. The

recruitment is done through Pavitra Portal. Total 9,080 posts were to be

filled in without conducting interviews. About 5,078 names were
                                    (7)                   WP-8046-2021


recommended for appointment through Pavitra Portal, and the process

of recommendation of the candidates for filling 3,011 posts was in

process. The Pavitra Portal has been activated and was in operation from

23/06/2017, that is the date of Government Resolution. In addition, he

submits that the petitioner has not passed Teacher Aptitude and

Intelligent Test (TAIT) examination and, as such, her name is also not

registered on the Pavitra Portal.


10.   In support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgment in Writ

Petition No. 3142 of 2020 passed by this Court, wherein it is directed

that the Government Resolution dated 23/06/2017 be scrupulously

followed. In cases where the management flouts the Government

decision, action will be taken. He thus prays for rejection of the writ

petition.


11.   Mr.   Shaikh,   the   learned    Advocate    for   Respondent      Nos.

3/Management and Respondent No.4/School supports the petition.

There is also an affidavit-in-reply filed by them. It is also the case of the

Management that, in spite of its letter to the Deputy Director seeking
                                   (8)                  WP-8046-2021


permission to fill up the post, there was no response. The Management

was therefore left with any option but to fill up the post by following

procedure on its own. Before filling up the post, the post was duly

advertised. Interviews were conducted. In the TIAT examination, the

petitioner has secured 90 marks out of 200, as is clear from the record,

and therefore, her name appeared in the list of teachers. To avoid loss to

the educational career of students, she was given an appointment. He

submits that, on the one hand, the authorities did not consider the

proposal to appoint the teachers upon publication of the advertisement

and, on the other hand, have now refused the approval, stating that

there was no prior sanction obtained by the Management. Even the

proposal was sent for approval to the BC Cell for verification of the

roster. After verification the post of the petitioner was shown as reserved

for NT category. On that count also, there is no violation of the selection

process. He reiterated that the Pavitra Portal was not activated properly

till 20/06/2019 and further till January 2023. The direction issued by

letter dated 07/07/2023 to all the Zilla Parishads by the State clearly

shows that the Managements were at liberty to fill up the posts for
                                  (9)                  WP-8046-2021


temporary period. Pursuant to the said letter, there was also a letter

issued by the Office of the Commissioner (Education), Pune, dated

17/08/2023, stating that on the Pavitra Portal, no action was taken for

the period from 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2020, 01.01.2021 to 31.12.2021

and 01.01.2022 to 31.12.2022. He thus submits that when it is an

admitted position that the Pavitra Portal was not functioning for such a

long period, no fault can be found with the Management. Judicial notice

can be taken of the fact that the performance of TIAT of many of the

candidates was cancelled. He thus supports the recruitment process.


12.   This Court has gone through the impugned order. By Government

Resolution dated 23/06/2017, the State Government has now clearly

formulated a policy to recruit teachers through Pavitra Portal. So far as

present case is concerned, it is clearly seen that while publishing an

advertisement, there was no prior sanction obtained from the

authorities. The advertisement was published in the newspaper on

30/05/2019, and pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner's

appointment was made.
                                   ( 10 )               WP-8046-2021


13.    Considering the arguments of the petitioner that, for the relevant

period, Pavitra Portal was not functioning, respondent Nos. 3 and 4

relied upon the information supplied under the Right to Information Act

vide communication dated 17/08/2023. This communication shows that

the Pavitra Portal was not functioning from 01.01.2020 till 31/12/2020,

and subsequently, the periods recorded in detail in the foregoing

paragraphs. However, in the present case, the advertisement is much

prior to that, i.e., 30/05/2019. There is no case that, on that day or for

the relevant period, Pavitra Portal was not in operation.


14.    In the case of Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ors. Vs. Deputy

Director of Education and Anr.2 in that case, what was directed was only

to reconsider the proposals seeking approval to the appointment of the

petitioner therein.

15.    In the case of Rajesh Padmakar Bhangale (supra), there was a

refusal to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioners therein.

In that case, advertisement was dated 13/01/2018. The approval was

rejected on the ground that the names of the petitioners were not

2 WP/5245/2018 (Aurangabad)
                                        ( 11 )               WP-8046-2021


processed through Pavitra Portal as per the Government Resolution

dated 23/06/2017. It was considered that the Pavitra Portal was not

functioning or activated at the relevant time, i.e., 20/08/2018. In that

view, it was directed to reconsider the cases of the petitioners therein.


16.    In the case of Pranitkumar Balajirao Ankade Vs. The State of

Maharashtra and Ors.3, it was observed that the Pavitra Portal was not

made     fully    functional   till   2019.      The   Management   had     made

correspondence with the Education Officer seeking permission to issue

an advertisement for the recruitment of teachers, but the said was not

responded. The respondents could not show that the Pavitra Portal was

in operation on the date of appointment of the petitioner or on the date

of issuance of the advertisement by the Management. It is specifically

observed that the Pavitra Portal became operational on 20/06/2019, and

in that view, it was held that there was no reason to blame the

management and the school for making appointments through Pavitra

Portal. In the present case, the advertisement was issued on

20/05/2019, the interviews were held on 11/06/2019, and the

3 WP/10155/2021 (Aurangabad)
                                  ( 12 )               WP-8046-2021


appointment was made on 03/08/2020. Thus, on both the date of

issuance of advertisement and the date of interviews, the Pavitra Portal

was not functioning.


17.    So far as judgment in the case of Rajan Sahadeo Ratul and Ors.

(supra), is concerned, this Court held that the Management was within

its rights to commence the selection process in absence of a response

from the respondents. There was no lapse pointed out by the

respondent/authorities in respect of the selection process. The petition

was allowed in that view of the matter.

18.    In the case of Lalit Suresh Shinde Vs. The State of Maharashtra

and Ors.4, this Court relied upon the judgment in the case of Rajan Ratul

(supra). It was considered that the Management had sent the proposal

to the respondent/authorities; however, there was no response from the

authorities. In that view, it was held that the Management cannot be

blamed for issuing an advertisement. In that background, it was held

that the Education Officer cannot thereafter raise objections that no

prior permission was granted.

4 WP/10270/2019 (Aurangabad)
                                    ( 13 )                WP-8046-2021


19.   Considering all above, this Court finds that, in the present case,

when the advertisement was issued, the Pavitra Portal was not

functioning. Even on the date of interview, it was not functional. There is

no explanation from the Government as to why the proposal of the

Management was not responded to. Presently, it is a case where the

authorities are certainly required to be blamed for not responding.


20.   From the communication dated 07/07/2023, it is clear that

considering the fact that the Pavitra Portal was not functioning, the

Management was allowed to fill up the posts, though temporary. In the

present case, it is clearly seen that the blame lies with the authorities for

not responding in time. This Court clearly finds that a case is made out

to direct the authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner. Hence,

following order:-


                              ORDER

       (i)    Writ petition stands allowed.
       (ii)   The impugned letter dated 15/03/2021 issued by
       Respondent No.2/the Deputy Director of Education, Latur
       Division Latur, refusing the claim for grant of approval, is
                                          ( 14 )              WP-8046-2021


             quashed and set aside.

             (iii) The Respondent/authorities are directed to consider
             the proposal of the petitioner again. The proposal shall
             not be rejected on the ground of prior sanction to
             advertise the post and secondly that the procedure is not
             followed through Pavitra Portal.


             (iv) It is open for the respondent/authorities to consider
             the proposal on other aspects and to grant approval if the
             petitioner is otherwise found eligible.


             (v)   Rule made absolute in above terms.



[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]                              [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]

D.A.ETHAPE