In a petition filed before the Bombay High Court for quashing of a communication dated 07-08-2025 by the Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad (DDE), and to direct the DDE to grant approval for the petitioner’s promotion to the post of Assistant Teacher, a Division Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar remitted the matter back to the DDE to decide the same afresh after granting the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
The petitioner, belonging to a socially and educationally backward category, was a graduate with a Bachelor’s degree in Agriculture and a Master’s degree in Biotechnology. He was appointed as a Junior Clerk by an appointment order dated 10-10-2019. His appointment was made in accordance with the due process of law contemplated under Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The State Government granted 20% grant-in-aid to the school, which was gradually increased to 60%.
Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to Senior Clerk, and the same was approved by the Education Officer. The petitioner’s name was included in Shalarth Pranali by an order dated 18-07-2024 by the DDE. During the course of his service, the petitioner qualified B.Ed. Considering his qualifications and seniority, the management promoted the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher. Once the proposal for the petitioner’s promotion was forwarded to the DDE, it was rejected on the grounds that the appointment was not in accordance with a Government Resolution dated 10-06-2022. The DDE held that Assistant Teachers could be appointed only through the Pavitra Portal, not directly.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s appointment as an Assistant Teacher was not a fresh appointment, but a promotion effected on a clear and sanctioned vacant post. It was opined that if the DDE had any reason to believe that the said Government Resolution was applicable, it was necessary on his part to issue notice to the petitioner as well as the management to seek their reply.
The Court stated that the objective of making appointments through the Pavitra Portal was to maintain clarity and transparency in making fresh appointments in educational institutions, while providing equal opportunity to all similarly situated candidates. However, it was stated that cases in which internal appointments were made through promotion were not regulated by the Government Resolution.
Thus, the Court remitted the matter back to the DDE and permitted the DDE to recall the proposal from the management. The DDE was directed to reconsider and decide the proposal afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the management as well as the petitioner.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. T.M. Venjane
For Respondents – Mr. S.B. Narwade (AGP)
