The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a teacher's appointment by the Education Officer. The petitioner's appointment as an assistant teacher was rejected due to the late submission of the approval proposal and failure to comply with mandatory advertisement requirements.

1. Background of the Case:

The petitioner, appointed as an assistant teacher at Sane Guruji Vidhya Mandir in Jalgaon, challenged the rejection of his appointment approval by the Education Officer. The approval was denied based on two grounds: the proposal was submitted five years after the appointment, and the appointment was not made through the Pavitra Portal.

2. Pavitra Portal Issue:

The petitioner argued that the Pavitra Portal, which started on June 20, 2018, was not in operation at the time of his appointment on June 1, 2018. The court acknowledged this argument, citing a previous judgment that the insistence on using the Pavitra Portal was not justified for appointments made before its operation.

3. Delay in Approval Proposal:

The court noted that although the Rules do not specify a time limit for submitting approval proposals, such proposals should be made within a reasonable period. The five-year delay in submission was considered unreasonable, and the court questioned why the petitioner had not taken any action to expedite the approval process.

4. Non-Compliance with Advertisement Requirements:

The court found that the management failed to comply with Rule 9(2A) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981, which mandates that vacancies must be advertised in a local newspaper with wide circulation and notified to the Employment Exchange Centre and District Social Welfare Officer. The court deemed the advertisement published in a weekly newspaper insufficient and noted the absence of evidence that the vacancy was properly notified.

5. Violation of Article 16:

The court emphasized that recruitment in aided schools, where the State bears the salary burden, must comply with Article 16 of the Constitution of India, ensuring equal opportunity in public employment. The failure to widely advertise the vacancy was found to be a violation of this fundamental right.

6. Conclusion:

The court dismissed the writ petition, citing the delay in the approval process and non-compliance with advertisement requirements as the primary reasons. No costs were imposed on the petitioner.