Legal Examination of the Petition Against Rejection of Teacher Appointment Proposal.


26 February 2025 Employee Related >> Corporate Law   |   Education >> Miscellaneous  

The petition under review revolves around the legal dispute between the petitioner and the Education Authorities regarding the rejection of a teacher’s appointment proposal by the Education Officer. The crux of the case centers around the legality of the rejection order passed on the grounds of non-compliance with procedural requirements set by the state government, specifically regarding the introduction of the Pavitra Portal and other administrative protocols.

Case Background:

In the present case of Gayatri Pandurang Bhamre v/s Gram Vikas Mandal & Others, the petitioner, an applicant for the position of Assistant Teacher at a school managed by Respondent No. 1, sought relief through a writ petition. She contested the order dated November 7, 2022, passed by the Education Officer (Secondary) of Nashik, Respondent No. 3, rejecting the proposal for her appointment to the post.
 
 

The petitioner had applied for the position advertised on March 4, 2021, and subsequently, after undergoing an interview process, was selected for the post of Assistant Teacher in Science. The appointment was made effective from April 1, 2021, for a two-year term, ending on March 31, 2023. However, the Education Officer rejected the proposal for her appointment, citing non-compliance with the Pavitra Portal Scheme and failing to follow the prescribed procedures outlined in the relevant government resolution.

Key Issues Raised:

The petition was filed with the following reliefs sought by the petitioner:
The quashing of the order passed on November 7, 2022, by Respondent No. 3, rejecting the proposal for her appointment.
A writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 to resubmit the proposal for approval and compelling Respondent No. 2, the Education Officer, to reconsider and approve her appointment.
The primary issue to be examined was whether the rejection order passed by Respondent No. 3 was illegal.

The Pavitra Portal and Appointment Procedures:

The Pavitra Portal was introduced by the School Education and Sports Department in 2017 to bring transparency to the recruitment process in private schools. The petitioner’s appointment, however, was not processed through the Pavitra Portal, which formed the basis of the rejection order. Respondent No. 3 argued that all teacher appointments must follow the procedures laid down by the Pavitra Portal, making the petitioner’s appointment void.

Procedural Concerns and Legal Compliance:

The court examined the facts of the case, noting that while the petitioner had been appointed as an Assistant Teacher, several procedural lapses were observed. These included the following:
The advertisement for the post, published in the “Rajrang Times” newspaper on March 4, 2021, did not comply with Rule 9(2-A) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (MEPS) Rules, 1981. This rule mandates the publication of such advertisements in newspapers with wide circulation.
Rule 9(2-B) requires that the advertisement be open for at least 15 days, yet the interview for the post was held just 11 days after the publication of the advertisement.

The petitioner did not provide any evidence to prove that she had passed the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) as required by the advertisement.

These violations, including the non-compliance with the Pavitra Portal procedure, led to the rejection of the proposal by the Education Officer. The court highlighted the importance of adhering to legal requirements in recruitment processes to ensure fairness and transparency.

Court’s Decision:

Upon reviewing the case, the court concluded that the rejection of the petitioner's appointment was justified. The failure to follow the prescribed procedure, particularly regarding the advertisement publication and TET qualification, rendered the appointment invalid. The petitioner’s appointment, as made by Respondent No. 1, did not meet the statutory requirements, particularly the implementation of the Pavitra Portal procedures.
The court also noted that the petitioner’s selection did not adhere to Rule 9(2-A) of the MEPS Rules and was contrary to the advertised qualifications. Given these factors, the court found no merit in the petitioner’s plea and dismissed the petition.

Conclusion:

The legal dispute underscores the importance of adhering to established rules and procedures in educational appointments. Non-compliance with the Pavitra Portal, as well as deficiencies in the advertisement and qualification criteria, led to the rejection of the petitioner’s appointment proposal. The court’s ruling emphasizes that legal and procedural rigor must be followed for the validity of appointments in educational institutions.