Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1697

IN THE HIGH COURT Of JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Ravindra V. Ghuge, Ashwin D. Bhobe, JJ.
Kum. Ratna Ramesh Salunke and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary Department of School Education and ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 6949 of 2025, Writ Petition No. 6950 of 2025, Writ Petition No. 10116 of 2025
Decided On : 16-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Respondent: Mr. M.M. Pabale, AGP, Mrs. Pooja Joshi Deshpande, AGP, Ms. Priyanka Chavan, AGP

Recruitment of teachers in private schools must comply with the Pavitra Portal process, as deviations undermine transparency and violate Article 16 rights.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 16 - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981 - Requirement for recruitment of teachers in private schools through Pavitra Portal - Petitioners challenged rejection of recruitment proposals for Shikshan Sevaks, contending non-operation of Pavitra Portal - Court determined that the Portal was functional and the petitioners misrepresented its status. (Paras 8, 30-34)

(B) Recruitment Advertisement - Mandate under Rule 9(2-A) - Flaws in the advertisements issued by the Petitioners, including omission of critical details such as age criteria and insufficient newspaper circulation - Recruitment process deemed invalid as it violated transparency requirements and Article 16, leading to dismissal of the petitions. (Paras 24-26)

(C) Findings include the imposition of stricter compliance measures for the Pavitra Portal and accountability of educational officers concerning recruitment processes to maintain integrity and transparency. (Paras 28-36)

Table of Content
1. petitioners are individual employees and management affected by rejection of teacher appointments. (Para 2)
2. petitioners and education department present conflicting accounts of the pavitra portal's functionality. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court acknowledges contradictions in statements about the pavitra portal's status. (Para 10 , 11)
4. previous court rulings influenced the establishment of the pavitra portal for teacher recruitment. (Para 12 , 13)
5. pavitra portal aimed to ensure merit-based recruitment for state-funded teacher positions. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
6. management's recruitment practices contradicted established protocols regarding the pavitra portal. (Para 19 , 20)
7. lack of compliance with the pavitra portal confirmed, highlighting misleading statements. (Para 21 , 22)
8. deficiencies in advertisements considered grounds for rejecting recruitment proposals. (Para 24 , 25)
9. management's private recruitment practices raised concerns about compliance with standard recruitment protocols. (Para 26 , 27)
10. court emphasizes need for strict adherence to recruitment policies to prevent evasion of regulations. (Para 29 , 30 , 32)
11. writ petitions disposed off following recognition of management's failures. (Para 34)
12. court discharges rule after outlining compliance expectations for the management. (Para 36)

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. In all these matters, the Petitioners comprise of the individual employees and the Education Society (their employer), which is Sudhagad Education Society, Pali, Taluka Sudhagad, District Raigad. The identically placed employees and the Management are aggrieved that the proposal forwarded by the Management seeking approval to the appointment of the employees, as Shikshan Sevak, has been rejected. The details about the employees, who were appointed as Shikshan Sevak for a period of three years, have been set out in the pleadings.

[A] CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS

3. It is claimed that the advertisement, prior to the selection and appointment of the teachers, was published in ‘Ratnagiri Times’. The School Committee found these Petitioner candidates suitable for appointment as Shikshan Sevak. Though the advertisement was published on 15^th July, 2022, the Management appointed the Petitioners as Shikshan Sevaks on different dates. Kum. Ratna Ramesh Salunke was appointed on 30^th November, 2023 (after 16 months), Sou. Sanjivani Shailesh Patil was appointed on 12^th July, 2023 (after one year) and Shri. Suraj Krushna Mendan was appointed on 28^th November, 2024 (after 28 months).

4. The Management contends that, before the above recruitment, there was an interaction between the Management and Respondent No.3, Education Officer (Secondary), praying for allotment of surplus teachers to fill up the vacancies with the various schools operated by the Management. Because the surplus teachers were not allotted and the Pavitra Portal System was not activated, the Management recruited fresh hands as Shikshan Sevak. Because the Pavitra Portal was not functional, the Management proceeded to carry out the recruitment. It is categorically pleaded in the Petition that the Pavitra Portal System was not operative till the date of the filing of the Petitions. This is the foundational pleading of the Management in all the Petitions (which has turned out to be a false statement).

5. The Petitioner/Education Society relied upon an oral order dated 19^th August, 2025, passed in Writ Petition No.19146 of 2024 (Avdhut Gorakhnath Kumbhar & Ors. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) at the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, granting approval to the appointment of Art Teachers as Shikshan Sevak for three years. The learned AGP had conceded in the said case, by making a statement that ‘the Pavitra Portal was non-functional’.

[B] CONTENTIONS OF THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

6. The Education Department has specifically pleaded vid