Appointment of Assistant Teacher Without Following the Prescribed Procedure Under Pavitra Portal Held Illegal – Rule 9(2-A) and 9(2-B) of MEPS Rules, 1981 Not Followed

Introduction of Pavitra Portal and its purpose (Para 10) Non-compliance with Pavitra Portal procedure (Para 11 ) Procedural flaws in the advertisement and selection process (Para 12 ) Absence of TET certification disqualifying the Petitioner (Para 14 ) Illegality of the Petitioner’s appointment (Para 15 )  Dismissal of the Petition (Para 16 )

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the rejection of the appointment due to non-compliance with the Pavitra Portal requirements and procedural flaws in the advertisement and selection process.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act, 1977) – Section 5(1)

• Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 – Rule 9(2-A), Rule 9(2-B)

• Government Resolution Dated 23rd June, 2017 – Pavitra Portal Scheme

• Government Resolution Dated 7th February, 2019 – Revised Procedure for Selection and Appointment

Subjects:

Appointment Procedure – Pavitra Portal – Wide Circulation – Eligibility Criteria – TET Certificate – Approval of Service – Transparency in Recruitment – Non-Compliance – Illegal Appointment – Dismissal of Petition

Nature of the Litigation: Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner challenging the rejection of her appointment as an Assistant Teacher on the ground of non-compliance with the Pavitra Portal procedure.

Relief Sought: (a) Quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 07th November, 2022 passed by Respondent No. 3 – Education Officer (Secondary), Nashik. (b) Direction to Respondent No. 1 – Management to submit a fresh proposal for approval of the Petitioner’s service and Respondent No. 3 to reconsider and grant the same.

Reason for Filing the Case: Rejection of the Petitioner’s appointment approval due to non-adherence to the Pavitra Portal recruitment procedure.

Prior Decisions: Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 supported the Petitioner’s case, claiming compliance with Section 5(1) of the MEPS Act, 1977 and Rules, 1981.

Issues: Whether the impugned order rejecting the approval of the Petitioner’s appointment is illegal?

Submissions/Arguments:

(a) Petitioner contended that the appointment followed due process and satisfied eligibility requirements. (b) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 supported the Petitioner’s appointment, asserting proper compliance with the MEPS Act and Rules. (c) Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 argued that the appointment was illegal as it bypassed the mandatory Pavitra Portal procedure.

Ratio:

(a) Advertisement not published in a widely circulated newspaper as mandated by Rule 9(2-A) of the MEPS Rules, 1981. (b) Advertisement did not remain open for the required 15-day period before the interview, violating Rule 9(2-B). (c) Petitioner failed to produce proof of TET qualification, an essential eligibility criterion for the post. (d) Appointment not processed through the Pavitra Portal, making it illegal as per Government Resolution dated 23rd June, 2017.