Safiya Malik

The Bombay High Court Division Bench comprising Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge  and Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe has dismissed a petition challenging the rejection of an assistant teacher’s appointment, citing non-compliance with mandatory recruitment procedures. The petition sought the court’s intervention to set aside the rejection order issued by the Education Officer, which denied approval for the petitioner’s employment. The court held that the appointment was not made in accordance with the prescribed guidelines under the Pavitra Portal recruitment scheme and other statutory provisions governing teacher recruitment.

The petitioner, a 28-year-old assistant teacher, was appointed by the school management based on an advertisement published on March 4, 2021, in a newspaper. The position required candidates to hold a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) and a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degree, along with a valid Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) certificate. The petitioner applied for the post under the Other Backward Class (OBC) category and was subsequently appointed on March 31, 2021, for a two-year tenure starting April 1, 2021, until March 31, 2023.

On October 20, 2022, the school management submitted a proposal to the Education Officer, Nashik Zilla Parishad, seeking approval of the petitioner’s appointment. However, on November 7, 2022, the Education Officer rejected the proposal, stating that the appointment was not made through the Pavitra Portal, an online recruitment system introduced by the state government to ensure transparency in hiring teachers for private schools.

The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, arguing that the appointment process adhered to the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (MEPS) Act, 1977, and the corresponding rules of 1981. The petitioner’s legal counsel contended that the selection followed due process, including a valid advertisement and a selection process that complied with Section 5(1) of the MEPS Act. The petitioner sought a court directive to quash the rejection order and instruct the school management to resubmit the approval request.

The school management, which was among the respondents, supported the petitioner’s claim and maintained that the appointment was lawful. The management contended that the recruitment process was conducted with transparency and in compliance with statutory provisions.

The Education Department, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader, defended the rejection, stating that under the Government Resolution (G.R.) dated June 23, 2017, all teacher appointments were required to be processed through the Pavitra Portal. The department stated that this rule was upheld in a previous court judgement in 2018, which confirmed that all appointments not made through the Pavitra Portal were invalid.

The court examined the recruitment process and identified multiple discrepancies in the petitioner’s appointment. It noted that the government had introduced the Pavitra Portal to regulate and standardize hiring in private schools. The court referenced prior judicial precedents that upheld the legitimacy of the portal and its role in maintaining fairness and transparency in teacher appointments.

The court observed that “the appointment of the petitioner is not through the Pavitra Portal Scheme. Once it is established that the appointment of the petitioner is not in terms of Pavitra Portal, no indulgence would be warranted in favor of the petitioner, and the petition was liable to be dismissed on this count alone.”

Further, the court examined whether the appointment process adhered to the statutory requirements under the MEPS Rules, 1981. It found procedural violations in the advertisement and selection process. The petitioner did not produce a complete copy of the original newspaper advertisement but instead provided only an excerpt of its contents. The court noted that the petitioner had failed to substantiate the credibility and circulation of the newspaper in which the advertisement was published. The judgment recorded, “No material has been placed before us by the petitioner with regard to the nature of circulation of the said newspaper.”

Additionally, the court found that the advertisement period was shorter than the required timeframe. Under Rule 9(2-B) of the MEPS Rules, 1981, recruitment advertisements must remain open for at least 15 days before selection. In this case, however, the interview was scheduled only 11 days after the advertisement, violating the mandated period.

The court also examined the petitioner’s eligibility, particularly in relation to the TET requirement. The advertisement explicitly stated that candidates must hold a valid TET certificate. However, the petitioner did not submit any evidence proving that she had passed the TET examination before the interview date. The court remarked, “One of the eligibility criteria for the post of Assistant Teacher as advertised was that the candidate should possess a TET-passed certificate. The petition neither contains any averment nor any document indicating the petitioner having passed the TET examination as on March 15, 2021.”

Furthermore, the court noted the failure of the school management to justify why it had not adhered to the Pavitra Portal selection process, which had been in place since 2017. The court stated that deviation from this mandatory recruitment procedure rendered the entire appointment process invalid. The judgment recorded that “there is neither any justification nor any reason offered or urged before us for not adopting the selection process in terms of Pavitra Portal.”

Based on these findings, the court upheld the rejection of the appointment. The court stated, “the selection of the petitioner for the reasons recorded herein above is illegal.” It concluded that since the appointment was made in violation of statutory provisions and recruitment rules, no relief could be granted. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to cost

Case Title: Gayatri Pandurang Bhamre v. Gram Vikas Mandal & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1959 of 2024
Bench: Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge & Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe

[Read/Download order]