High Court · 2024

Legal Reasoning

(1) wp-2294-2023.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.2294 OF 2023WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO.9249 OF 2023INWRIT PETITION NO.2294 OF 20231.Tuba Tahjin Mohammad Idris,Age: 24 years, Occ.: Service, R/o. Imayati Nagar, Aurangabad,2. Pathan Tahsin Ibrahim Pathan,Age: 23 years, Occ.: Service, R/o. National Colony, Delhi Gate Road, Aurangabad,3. Shaikh Neha Shaikh Naeem,Age: 34 years, Occ.: Service, R/o. Ganesh Colony, Aurangabad4.Vishal Shikshan Prasarak Mandal'sDr. Patangrao Kadam Urdu Primary School, Jatwada Road, Harsul, Aurangabad Through the President...PetitionersVersus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through its Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.2.The Deputy Director of Education,Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad, Bhadkal Gate Circle, Narali Baug, Misa Compound, Aurangabad.3.The Education Officer (Primary),Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.4.The Superintendent,Pay and P.F. Unit (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad...Respondents …Mr. A. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioners.Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.Mr. U. B. Bondar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. … CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ. (2) wp-2294-2023.odtRESERVED ON: 18th MARCH 2024.PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd APRIL 2024.ORDER (Per: S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J.):- 1.The petitioners have approached this court underArticle 226 of constitution of India impugning order dated01.02.2023 passed by the Education Officer (Primary), ZillaParishad, Aurangabad-respondent no.3, thereby declining theapproval to appointments of the petitioners as an AssistantTeachers / Shikshan Sevak, on the ground that they are non-compliant of TET qualification.2.Mr. Kulkarni, learned Advocate appearing for thepetitioners submits that respondent no.3-Education Officer hadrejected the proposals for grant of approval to the appointments ofthe petitioners referring to the Government Resolution dated13.02.2013 on the ground that the petitioners are not holdingrequisite qualification of TET. The management had resubmittedthe proposals with the documents and copies of orders passed bythe Supreme Court of India as well as this Court, by whichsimilarly situated teachers were granted protection. However, theEducation Officer by his subsequent order dated 22.06.2023 againrejected the proposal. 3.Mr. Kulkarni, learned Advocate would further point outthat on 30.06.2023 respondent no.3 granted approval in favour ofpetitioner no.3 and rejected the proposals of petitioner nos.1 and 2.Mr. Kulkarni, would further point out that on 05/03/2024,respondent no.3 granted conditional approval to the appointment ofpetitioner no.2 w.e.f. 15.02.2021 subject to outcome of this petition.He would submit that petitioner no.4 is minority institution. Theissue as to whether the TET qualification is mandatory forappointment of teachers in minority institutions is subject matter (3) wp-2294-2023.odtpending before the Supreme Court of India. In similarcircumstances, this Court has passed orders directing grant ofconditional approval to the appointments of the teachers, who doesnot possess TET qualification. He would, therefore, urge that theimpugned orders needs to be quashed and set aside and directionsare required to be given to the Education Officer to grant approvalto the petitioners’ appointments.4.Mr. Phule, learned A.G.P. appearing for respondentnos.1 and 2 and Mr. Bondar, learned Advocate appearing forrespondent nos.3 and 4 supports impugned order.5.We have considered the submissions advanced onbehalf of the learned Advocates appearing for the respectiveparties. We have perused the record tendered into service beforeus. Apparently, the petitioners are holding requisite qualificationsto be appointed as Shikshan Sevak / Assistant Teachers, exceptTET qualification, which is brought in vogue under GovernmentResolution dated 13.02.2013. The issue as regards to theapplicability of the TET qualification to appointments of teachersin minority institutions is sub-judice before the Supreme Court ofIndia in the matter of Director of School Education, Chennaiand another Vs. B. Annie Packiarani Bai and another inSpecial Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.17702/2021, whereinon 14.02.2022 the Supreme Court has framed a specific issue asunder:“The important question of law which is raised in thepresent SLP is whether the Department can insist forTET examination passed in case of a Teacher of aminority institution and whether providing such aqualification would effect any of the rights of theminority institution guaranteed under the Constitution ofIndia.” (4) wp-2294-2023.odt6.Perusal of the impugned order would show that theonly ground for rejection of the approval to the petitioners’appointments is that they are not compliant with the TETqualification. In similar circumstances this court directed grant ofconditional approval. We are inclined to adopt same course in thiscase. Further, petitioners would be entitled for salary againstservices rendered by them subject to certain conditions.7.Resultantly, we are inclined to partly allow the WritPetition and direct Education officer grant of conditional approvalin favour of petitioner no.1 and 2 in terms of operative part of thisorder. Since, appointment of petitioner no.3 is already approved byEducation officer and her grievance is redressed, Mr. Kulkarni, oninstruction, seeks withdrawal of writ petition to the extent ofpetitioner No.3. Hence, we proceed to pass following order:ORDERa.Writ Petition to the extent of petitioner No. 1 and 2 is partlyallowed. b.The respondent no.3- Education Officer (Primary), ZillaParishad, Aurangabad shall grant approval to the appointmentsof petitioner no. 1 and 2 from the date of their appointment, byappropriately modifying approval issued in favour of petitionerno.2, subject to following conditions:[a] The petitioner nos.1 and 2 would tender an undertakingthat, they would abide by the conclusions that would bedrawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and if the verdict isadverse to those teachers who do not have the TETqualification or have cleared the TET after 31.03.2019, oras the case may be, they would abide by the same withoutraising any cause of action. (5) wp-2294-2023.odt[b] Let such affidavit undertaking be filed in this Court within15 days from today and a copy be tendered to theconcerned Education Officer within the same timeline. [c] The proposals of petitioner nos.1 and 2 would be consideredfor entering their names in the ‘Shalarth-ID’ on their ownmerits, save and except, the reason that they are not TETqualified. Needless to state, the proposals would bedecided within 30 days after the submissions of theundertakings.[d] If an adverse order is passed by the Hon’ble SupremeCourt, the State Government would not recover thesalaries already paid to them, since they have worked forthose tenures and they have earned their salaries forperforming their duties. [e] In the event, the candidates like petitioner nos.1 and 2 areprotected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s conclusions andthey are held to be qualified to continue in employment,they would be entitled for all service benefits likepromotions, increments, etc. c.Writ Petition to the extent of petitioner No. 3 is disposed aswithdrawn.d.In view of disposal of Writ Petition, the pending CivilApplication stands dispose of.(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI) JUDGE JUDGEDevendra/April-2024