PRAKASH DAULAT PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGP for State, learned counsel for respondent No.2 / Zilla Parishad and learned counsel for respondent No.3- institution.

(2.) The petitioner claims that he has been appointed on the post of assistant teacher in Sane Guruji Vidhya Mandir, Derabardi, Taluka-Chalisgaon, District-Jalgaon. He is challenging the order dtd. 21/9/2023 passed by the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, whereby the approval sought to the appointment of the petitioner has been declined on two grounds, namely, (i) that the proposal seeking approval to the appointment as assistant teacher was sent after five years from the date of appointment and (ii) that the appointment was not through the Pavitra Portal as per the requirement of the rules.

(3.) In respect of the ground that the appointment was not made through the Pavitra Portal, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appointment of the petitioner was made on 1/6/2018, whereas the Pavitra Portal started functioning with effect from 20/6/2018 and accordingly the insistence by the Education Officer for appointment of the petitioner through Pavitra Portal in the instant case is not justified. So far as the late submission of the proposal seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner as assistant teacher to the Education Officer is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that under the Rules / Government Resolutions, no time limit is provided. Further, to send the proposal for approval to the appointment to the Education Officer was the responsibility of the management of the school and because of the inaction on the part of the management of the school, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer.