Prior Permission or Pavitra Portal Compliance Not Required for Appointments to Non-Grant-in-Aid Posts

Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher by Petitioner No. 3 (School Management) on August 13, 2016, following an advertisement for a vacancy created by a promotion.

The post was on a non-grant-in-aid basis.

Despite several proposals submitted between 2017 and 2023, the Education Officer rejected the individual approval of Petitioner No. 1 via an order dated September 27, 2023.

The rejection was grounded on: failure to obtain prior permission under the Government Resolution (GR) dated February 6, 2012; failure to verify surplus teacher availability under Section 5 of the MEPS Act; non-adherence to the Pavitra Portal guidelines (GR dated June 23, 2017); delay in submission; and lack of an approved roster.

1. Whether the requirement under Section 5(1) of the MEPS Act to ascertain the availability of surplus teachers applies to appointments made to non-grant-in-aid posts.

2. Whether the Pavitra Portal guidelines introduced via GR dated June 23, 2017, apply retrospectively to appointments made prior to its issuance.

3. Whether the delay in deciding the approval proposal can be attributed to the Petitioner when multiple proposals were submitted and acknowledged.

The court applied Section 5(1) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act), which mandates Management to check for surplus persons from the Education Officer's list before filling vacancies.

Rule 26 of the MEPS Rules, which clarifies that the absorption of surplus employees applies specifically to "aided schools".

The court relied on the principle of non-retrospectivity of statutes/GRs unless expressly stated, citing Suman Shriram Kakad v. State of Maharashtra (2011).

The Court reasoned that Section 5(1) and Rule 26 of the MEPS Act/Rules, when read together, indicate that the obligation to absorb surplus teachers is only applicable to schools receiving grant-in-aid, as surplus teachers are typically employees of aided institutions whose posts were abolished.

Consequently, the GR dated February 6, 2012, was held inapplicable to non-grant-in-aid posts.

Regarding the Pavitra Portal (GR dated June 23, 2017), the Court held it could not be applied retrospectively to a 2015/2016 appointment, as it is a cardinal principle that statutes are prima facie prospective.

On the issue of delay, the Court noted that the Petitioners had submitted timely proposals which were acknowledged but ignored by the Education Officer; thus, the Petitioner could not be penalized for administrative inaction.

Finally, the Court observed that for non-grant posts, the financial burden lies solely with the Management, and Petitioner No. 1 had become a "deemed confirmed employee" by virtue of continuous service since 2015.

The Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the impugned order dated September 27, 2023, and directed the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli, to grant approval to the appointment of Petitioner No. 1 from the date of his appointment, i.e., August 13, 2015.