Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court, in a landmark decision delivered by Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe, strongly reprimanded private school managements that bypass the Pavitra Portal Recruitment System, calling such conduct a “deliberate attempt to mislead the Court and the State”.
Holding that the Sudhagad Education Society had made false statements on oath and recruited teachers privately despite having been allotted a login ID, the Court dismissed all writ petitions seeking approval of appointments made outside the Pavitra Portal.
The Bench ordered the State of Maharashtra to constitute High-Level Regional Committees to investigate all private institutions suspected of evading the portal-based recruitment mechanism and to formulate a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to ensure compliance and accountability within six months.
“Recruitment through Pavitra Portal is mandatory. Managements cannot indulge in private recruitment by claiming that the portal was non-functional. Truthfulness in pleadings is the foundation of justice.”
Facts
The petitions were filed by teachers and the Sudhagad Education Society, which runs several schools in Raigad district. The society had sought approval from the Education Department for the appointment of teachers as Shikshan Sevaks.
It was alleged that the appointments were made after advertisements in Ratnagiri Times and other local papers, since — as claimed by the management — the Pavitra Portal was non-functional and no login credentials had been provided.
However, the Education Department refuted this claim, producing records showing that the Society had been allotted a Saral ID, that the Pavitra Portal was fully functional, and that the Society had in fact been using the system for other operations such as staff information uploads.
The authorities rejected the approval proposals, citing non-compliance with the Pavitra Portal mandate, misleading advertisements, and violations of reservation and transparency requirements. The management and teachers then approached the High Court seeking relief.
Issues
- Whether appointments made outside the Pavitra Portal recruitment process are valid or entitled to government approval?
- Whether the management made false statements regarding the portal’s functionality and login credentials?
- Whether the government can impose accountability measures on education societies and officers for recruitment irregularities?
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners — comprising the Education Society and the appointees — argued that the Pavitra Portal was not functional for their district or institution, and hence the recruitment was carried out independently to ensure uninterrupted teaching in their schools.
They submitted that repeated representations had been made to the Education Officer in 2021 and 2022 seeking activation of the portal and permission to fill vacancies, but no response was received. This administrative silence compelled them to appoint teachers directly.
The petitioners further relied upon earlier orders of the High Court in Avdhut Gorakhnath Kumbhar v. State of Maharashtra (2024) and Kalyansingh Indrasingh Rajput v. State of Maharashtra (2025), where courts had granted approval to appointments due to non-functionality of the portal at that time.
They contended that the management acted bona fide and in the best interest of students, and hence, the State should not deny approval when teachers had already served for years.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Education Department accused the Society of falsehood and manipulation, submitting that:
- The Pavitra Portal was functional throughout the relevant period.
- A Login ID had been duly allotted to the Sudhagad Education Society, which even used the same ID for uploading staff data.
- The Society deliberately avoided the portal-based recruitment to make private appointments through opaque advertisements in small-circulation newspapers.
It was emphasized that the 2017 Government Resolution made recruitment through the Pavitra Portal mandatory, following a 2015 order of the Bombay High Court in Court on its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra, which had highlighted widespread corruption in teacher appointments.
The State argued that transparency and merit-based selection were the objectives behind the portal’s introduction, and any deviation would render the process illegal.
Analysis of the Law
The Court extensively referred to the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 8 of 2015 decided at the Nagpur Bench, which had led to the creation of the Pavitra Portal. That judgment had observed that appointments in aided schools, funded by public money, must be transparent and merit-based.
The 2017 Government Resolution was enacted to operationalize this direction, mandating that all teaching and non-teaching appointments in private aided schools must be conducted through the Pavitra Portal.
The Bench reiterated that the portal ensures fair opportunity to all eligible candidates, prevents backdoor entries, and ensures that appointments comply with reservation policies and merit norms.
The Court condemned the Society for misleading the Court, observing that the portal was active, and login credentials had been issued. It found the management’s affidavits contradictory — initially denying activation of the portal, and later claiming that it was active but not accessible.
Precedent Analysis
The Court drew upon several precedents to reinforce its findings:
- Pravin Bodhu Kasbe v. State of Maharashtra (2022) 2 Mah LJ 241 — directed strict compliance with the Pavitra Portal and warned that any deviation must invite disciplinary action.
- Prakash Daulat Patil v. State of Maharashtra (2024) 6 Bom CR 186 — held that recruitment in aided schools is public employment; failure to follow Rule 9(2A) of the 1981 Rules and advertise widely violates Article 16 of the Constitution.
- Pooja Yogesh Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2024) SCC OnLine Bom 3677 — held that issuing advertisements in obscure newspapers like “Bhartiya Nagarik” undermines transparency and violates fundamental rights.
- Amrit Yadav v. State of Jharkhand (2025 SCC OnLine SC 280) — Supreme Court held that defective advertisements lacking clarity on available posts are illegal due to lack of transparency.
These judgments collectively established that non-transparent recruitment processes — whether by skipping the Pavitra Portal or issuing defective advertisements — are invalid and unenforceable.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the Sudhagad Education Society had:
- Made false statements on oath by claiming the portal was inactive.
- Failed to appoint even a single teacher through the Pavitra Portal in eight years, despite multiple opportunities.
- Ignored the reservation policy and issued defective advertisements not in compliance with government resolutions of 2012 and 2022.
The Bench noted a recurring pattern among managements — writing letters to the Education Officer, receiving no response, and then proceeding to appoint teachers privately in non-circulated newspapers. This, it held, amounted to a deliberate circumvention of the law.
The Court underscored that once the State funds the salaries through the Shalarth Pranali, it has every right to regulate recruitment through the Pavitra Portal to ensure that public funds are not misused.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed all writ petitions and upheld the rejection of appointment approvals. It directed:
- The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, to form High-Level Regional Committees to investigate institutions bypassing the Pavitra Portal.
- The State to frame a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) within six months — covering portal activation, login access, reservation compliance, and publication norms.
- Strict disciplinary action against erring officers and managements facilitating illegal recruitments.
“If private managements are permitted to recruit teachers ignoring the Pavitra Portal, the entire system will be rendered meaningless. Transparency and merit must be non-negotiable.”
The Court fixed March 23, 2026 as the compliance date for submission of the State’s report.
Implications
This decision strengthens the Pavitra Portal framework as the only valid method for teacher recruitment in Maharashtra’s aided schools. It reaffirms the government’s power to ensure fairness, meritocracy, and transparency in appointments funded by public money.
It sends a strong message to educational managements that false affidavits and backdoor recruitment will invite scrutiny and punitive action, while also holding government officers accountable for non-enforcement.
