wp 11194-25.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11194 OF 2025 Sandhyarani Balasaheb Kapase and Others. ...Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others. ...Respondents. —————— Satish Raut for the Petitioner. Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : M. S. Karnik & Sharmila U. Deshmukh, JJ. Date : September 18, 2025. P. C. : 1. Rule. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent taken up for inal disposal. 3. The Petition impugns the order dated 24th March 2025 passed by the Respondent No.3 rejecting the proposal seeking approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.1 as Shikshan Sevak in Petitioner No.3- School. 4. The Petitioner possesses B.Sc., B.Ed. qualiication and is eligible for appointment to the post of Shikshan Sevak. From the year 2019-20, four posts of Assistant Teachers became vacant by reason of retirement. The Petitioner No.2 addressed communication dated 20th Patil-SR 1 of 4 wp 11194-25.doc April 2022 to the Respondent No.3 seeking permission for issuance of advertisement. There was no response by the Respondent No.3 to the said communication. On 30th April 2022, the Petitioner No.2 issued advertisement in a newspaper, namely, Daily Sanchar inviting applications from the qualiied candidates. 5. The Petitioner No.1 being duly qualiied, applied in response to the advertisement and was selected after following due procedure. The Petitioner No.1 was appointed vide appointment order dated 1st July 2022 w.e.f. 1st July 2022. On 28th October 2022, the Petitioner No.3 submitted a proposal to the Respondent No.3 seeking approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.1, which came to be rejected by the impugned order. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the rejection of approval is only on the ground that the appointment of Petitioner No. 1 was not done through Pavitra Portal. He submits that the issue is no longer res integra and has been settled by the decision dated 23rd April 2025 of by this Court in Kalyansing Indrasing Rajput v. The State of Maharashtra1 where the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has recorded a factual inding that Pavitra Portal was not functional till June 2024 or even thereafter and as Petitioner No.1 was appointed with efect from 17th August 2023, the rejection cannot be on the ground that the 1 Aurangabad Bench W.P. 10205 of 2024 decided on 23-4-2025. Patil-SR 2 of 4 wp 11194-25.doc appointment was not made through Pavitra Portal. 7. Per contra Mr. S. B. Kalel, learned AGP submits that it was pursuant to the directions issued by by this Court at Nagpur Bench in PIL No. 8 of 2014 that online Pavitra Portal was introduced by the State Government vide Government Resolution dated 23rd June 2017. He submits that there could not be any private recruitment process and all educational institutions were legally mandated to upload the recruitment process on SARAL Portal. He submits that subsequent decisions of this Court have also given directions to follow every mandatory procedure of recruitment conditions as per Pavitra Portal. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that Petitioner No.1 is duly qualiied for appointment to the post of Shikshan Sevak. The rejection of the proposal submitted for approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.1 is on the sole ground that the recruitment process was not done through Pavitra Portal. The issue is no longer res integra and has been settled by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Kalyansing Indrasing Rajput v. The State of Maharashtra (supra). There is a factual inding by the Co-ordinate bench that Pavitra Portal was not functional from 2017 onward until June 2024 and might be even thereafter. Though Government Resolution dated 23rd June 2017 and judicial decisions mandate the recruitment process to be done through Pavitra Portal in order to aford equal opportunity in Patil-SR 3 of 4 wp 11194-25.doc employment, due to non functioning of Pavitra Portal at the time when vacancy arose and Petitioner No.1 came to be appointed, the approval of Petitioner No.1 cannot be rejected on the ground that the recruitment process was not routed through Pavitra Portal. 9. In the light of above, writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (A) and (B) which read thus : “(A) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and after going through the same quash and set aside the impugned communication/ letter dated 24.03.2025, issued by the Respondent No.3 and thereby directing the Respondent No.3 to grant approval to the 1st Petitioner's appointment of Shikshan Sevak with efect from 01.07.2022 along with all consequential beneits. (B) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing Respondent No.2 herein to forthwith enter the name of the 1st Petitioner in Shalarth Pranali and issue and/or allot Shalarth Identity Number and further direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein to release grant in aid so as to pay monthly honorarium to the Petitioner since the date of her appointment and thereafter to pay regular salary with all consequential beneits.” 10. Rule is made absolute in above terms. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] [M. S. Karnik, J.] Patil-SR 4 of 4