← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/81/2023disposed off

Chakradhar Rameshrao Kadam v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

2024-08-05Hon'Ble Shri Justice Mangesh S. Patil,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Shailesh P. Brahme2 pages

2024:BHC-AUG:17125 56.WP.81.23.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.81 OF 2023 Chakradhar s/o Rameshrao Kadam ...

PETITIONER

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra, through it's Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2.

The Deputy Director of Education Latur Division, Latur Dist. Latur.

3.

Godavari Education Institution, Raher, Tq. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded, through its, Secretary 4.

The Panchwati Junior College, Raher Tal. Naigaon, Dist. Niagaon (Kh).

Dist. Nanded through its Head Master ...

RESPONDENTS ...

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. V.S. Panpatte AGP for Respondents: Mr. A.R. Kale Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 : Mr. P.G. Gunale ...

CORAM

: MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.

DATE : 05.08.2024 PER COURT:

Heard.

2.

The petitioner's proposal for grant of approval to his appointment has been declined by the impugned communication (Exhibit-J) on the ground that the appointment was not through Pavitra Portal as per the Government Resolution dated 23.06.2017. The issue is 1/2

56.WP.81.23.odt no more res integra. We have several times observed that the issue regarding Pavitra Portal is still amorphous, inasmuch as, it has never been put to the desired use and even the State Government had to issue a Government Resolution permitting appointments to be made on contractual and temporary basis, realizing the shortcomings in the operation of the Pavitra Portal.

3.

Suffice for the purpose to refer to the decision in the matter of Shaikh Jaweria Khadarsab Vs. The State of Maharashtra; W.P. No.13150/2022.

4.

With this limited observation, we allow the writ petition partly. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent - Divisional Deputy Director for taking appropriate decision on the proposal on its own merits. However, it shall not be rejected on the ground mentioned in the impugned order. The decision shall be taken, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within six weeks.

(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) habeeb 2/2