Digitally signed by ARUNA ARUNA SANDEEP SANDEEP TALWALKAR TALWALKAR Date: WP1959.2024.odt

2025.02.26

14:33:03 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1959 OF 2024 Gayatri Pandurang Bhamre Age: 28 years, Occ. Service.

R/o at Chinchkhede, Tal. & Dist. Dhule. … Petitioner.

Versus

1. Gram Vikas Mandal, Regd. Through Secretary, Naval Nagar, Tal. Dist. Dhule.

2. Shiv Chatrapati Shivaji School, Dhondibaar, through its Principal, Tal. Sinnar, Dist. Nashik-422103.

3. Education Officer (Secondary), Nashik, Zilla Parishad, Nashik.

4. State of Maharashtra to be served through the Government Pleader, Bombay High Court. … Respondents …

Mr. Anilkumar Patil a/w. Mr. Sachin Bhavar, a/w. Ms. Zeel Jain a/w. Mr.

Digvijay A. Patil, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Konika Tile Jadhav, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Mr. V.G. Badgujar, AGP for the State / Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, &

ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 6th FEBRUARY, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 26th FEBRUARY, 2025 JUDGMENT (PER ASHWIN D. BHOBE,J) :-

1. Rule. By consent of the counsel, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. By the present Petition, the Petitioner has sought the following substantial reliefs :

“B. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ in the like nature of Writ of Certificate may be pleased to quash and set aside the Order dt. 07.11.2022 passed by Respondent no. 2 Education Officer (Secondary), Nashik herein.

C. That this Hon’ble court be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any order, direction in the like nature of Writ Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ and may be pleased to direct the Respondent no. 1 Management to submit the proposal of approval afresh and also direct the Respondent No. 2 Education Officer to reconsider and grant the proposal for approval of the service of the Petitioner.”

3. FACTUAL MATRIX.

(a) Respondent No. 1 is the Educational Institution which manages and runs the Respondent No. 2 School.

(b) Petitioner has completed her graduation in Science &

Zoology and B.Ed. in Science.

(c) Respondent No. 1 vide advertisement, published in the newspaper “Rajrang Times”, dated 04.03.2021 invited applications for the post (2 Nos. ) of Assistant Teacher. Qualifications required for the said post were B.A. B.Ed. English, Hindi, Marathi B.Sc. B.Ed., Maths Science. Candidates were required to hold TET passing Certificate. Category notified was SC/ST/OBC.

Interviews were scheduled on 15.03.2021 at 10 a.m.

(d) Petitioner applied for the said post in OBC Category. Petitioner was selected for the post of Assistant Teacher, for subject Science.

(e) By order dated 31.03.2021, Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher for two year commencing from 01.04.2021 upto 31.03.2023.

(f) On 20.10.2022, Respondent No. 1 submitted its proposal to the Respondent No. 3, seeking approval of Petitioner’s appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher.

(g) By order dated 07.11.2022 Respondent No. 3 rejected the proposal dated 20.10.2022(“impugned order”). Proposal dated 20.10.2022 is rejected on the ground that the Petitioner's appointment is not made through the Pavitra Portal.

4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed their reply dated 18.12.2024 supporting the case of the Petitioner. Said Respondents contend that the appointment of the Petitioner was made after following the due process and in compliance with Section 5(1) of MEPS Act, 1977 and Rules 1981. It is their contentions that Respondent No. 3 erroneously rejected the proposal dated

20.10.2022.

Submissions:-

5. Mr. Anil Kumar Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the appointment of the Petitioner as an Assistant Teacher was made pursuant to the post being notified by advertisement dated 04.03.2021. He submits that Petitioner is from OBC category and she satisfies the qualifications required for the said post. According to him, the appointment of the Petitioner is made after following the requirements under MEPS Act, 1977 and Rules, 1981. He t