Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gayatri Pandurang Bhamre, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 07.11.2022 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Nashik, rejecting the proposal for approval of her appointment as an Assistant Teacher at Shiv Chatrapati Shivaji School. The petitioner was appointed by the school management (Respondent No. 1) on 31.03.2021 pursuant to an advertisement published on 04.03.2021 in the newspaper 'Rajrang Times'. The proposal for approval was submitted on 20.10.2022 but was rejected on the ground that the appointment was not made through the Pavitra Portal, a transparency mechanism introduced by Government Resolution dated 23.06.2017. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order and a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to reconsider the proposal. The school management supported the petitioner, contending that the appointment complied with the MEPS Act, 1977 and Rules, 1981. The State respondents argued that the Pavitra Portal was mandatory and that the newspaper 'Rajrang Times' was not widely circulated. The court identified the core issue as whether the impugned order was illegal. Analyzing the facts, the court noted that the appointment was not made through the Pavitra Portal, which was upheld as mandatory by a previous judgment of the court. Additionally, the court found multiple procedural flaws: the advertisement was not published in a newspaper with wide circulation as required by Rule 9(2-A) of the MEPS Rules, 1981; the interview was scheduled only 11 days after the advertisement, violating the 15-day minimum period under Rule 9(2-B); and the petitioner did not possess the required TET certificate at the time of interview. The court concluded that the selection was illegal and the impugned order was correct. The petition was dismissed, and rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Teacher Appointment - Pavitra Portal - Non-Compliance - The appointment of the petitioner was not made through the Pavitra Portal introduced by Government Resolution dated 23.06.2017, which was held to be mandatory for transparency in recruitment. The court held that once it is established that the appointment is not in terms of Pavitra Portal, no indulgence is warranted and the petition is liable to be dismissed on this count alone (Paras 10-11). B) Service Law - Advertisement - Wide Circulation - Rule 9(2-A) MEPS Rules, 1981 - The advertisement was published in 'Rajrang Times', a newspaper of unknown circulation, and no material was placed regarding its wide circulation. The court held that this violates Rule 9(2-A) which mandates advertisement in a local newspaper having wide circulation in the region (Para 12(a)). C) Service Law - Advertisement - Minimum Period - Rule 9(2-B) MEPS Rules, 1981 - The advertisement dated 04.03.2021 scheduled interviews on 15.03.2021, providing only 11 days, which is less than the mandatory 15 days under Rule 9(2-B). The court found this to be a flaw in the appointment process (Para 12(b)). D) Service Law - Eligibility - TET Certificate - The advertisement required candidates to possess a TET passing certificate, but the petitioner did not produce any document or averment showing she had passed TET as on the interview date. The court held that the respondent could not have considered her candidature (Paras 12(c), 14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order dated 07.11.2022 rejecting the proposal for approval of the petitioner's appointment as Assistant Teacher is illegal.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Pavitra Portal mandatory for teacher appointments
- MEPS Rules 1981 Rule 9(2-A) and 9(2-B) compliance
- TET certificate requirement
- advertisement in widely circulated newspaper
