Sushil Anil Chavan v. The State of Maharashtra and Others)WITHWRIT PETITION NO
Facts
- 1 -IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.3446 OF 2024(Sushil Anil Chavan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others)WITHWRIT PETITION NO.3452 OF 2024(Navin Shamrao Rathod Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others)Mr.T.M.Venjane, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.A.B.Girase, Govt.Pleader a/w Mr.R.K.Ingole, Mr.V.M.Kagne, AGPs’for Respondent/State. ( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND R.M. JOSHI, JJ.) DATE : APRIL 4, 2024PER COURT : 1.The Petitioners are before us since the proposals sentby their employers to the Deputy Director, Education, LaturDivision Latur, who has the jurisdiction to deal with the issue ofentering the name of a candidate in the shalarth pranali, seekingapproval to their transfer from the unaided establishment to the20% grand-in-aid establishment, have been dismissed. Theimpugned order rejects their proposals only on the ground thatthey are not TET qualified.2.This Court has passed several orders in plentiful casesgranting relief to the teachers who have not passed their TET. Ankhs/April 2024/3446
Legal Reasoning
- 2 -extensive order was passed by this Court on 07.09.2023 in WPNo.11121/2023 (Dattatraya Devidas Sonwale and anotherVs. The State of Maharashtra, Through its PrincipalSecretary and Others).3.Today, the learned Govt. Pleader brings to our noticethat it was never brought to the notice of this Court that several ofsuch Petitioners, have been regularized in employment on “nogrant basis”. Though this Court has passed the order running in 7pages dated 07.09.2023, it is obvious that it was not brought to thenotice of this Court that the Petitioners have a permanent approvalon “no grant basis”. Though several such orders are passed at thePrincipal Seat and even at the Nagpur Bench, this fact was notbrought to the notice of the Court.4.We find that in several matters, we were guided onlyby the fact that the Division Bench of this Court had delivered ajudgment dated 11.06.2021 in WP No.4904/2020 (SagarGopichand Bahire Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others)wherein this Court concluded that teachers without TETqualification prior to 31.03.2019, cannot be continued inemployment and all of them have to be terminated. This Court hadkhs/April 2024/3446
Decision
- 3 -stayed the operation of the said order for some time to enable thePetitioners to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court which directedstatus-quo to be maintained in Special Leave to AppealNo.8300/2021 (Priti Ravindra Warghante Vs. The State ofMaharashtra and Others).5.In view of the above, the learned Govt.Pleader callsupon this Court to deal with the issue as to whether such reliefcould be granted to those teachers who have not passed their TETat all and when such salary grants, keep on increasing @ 20% peryear taking the school to the stage of 100% salary grants. Hesubmits that this is not a bounty and can not be granted as areward to a teacher for having not passed the TET examination. 6.In view of the above, issue notice to the Respondents,returnable on 22.04.2024. The learned GP / AGP waives service ofnotice on behalf of all the Respondents. Let the affidavit in replybe filed at least one week prior to the returnable date. 7.All office objections to be removed on or before15/04/2024, failing which, the Petition shall stand dismissedwithout reference to the Court on 16.04.2024.khs/April 2024/3446 - 4 -8.The author of the impugned order Dr.Ganpat More,Deputy Director (Education), Latur Division Latur is present beforethe Court for the reason that we had come across several identicalorders rejecting the proposals only on the ground that thecandidates have not passed the TET. We desired to gather as towhy the said Officer was repeatedly passing such orders.9.The learned Govt.Pleader along with Mr.Ingole, haveaddressed us. Affidavit dated 04.04.2024 is entered by Dr.More.While tendering an apology for passing identical orders repeatedly,he has raised an issue, which needs consideration. He submits thatthough this Court has set aside the orders in which proposals havebeen rejected on the ground of absence of TET, he has noguidelines to pass any order ignoring lack of TET qualification.There is no direction from his Department, directing him that heshould ignore the lack of TET qualification until the Hon’bleSupreme Court decides the pending proceedings.10.Our attention is drawn to the directions issued inthe order dated 07.09.2023 (supra), wherein we have recorded inparagraph No.10 as under :-khs/April 2024/3446 - 5 -“(a) The Petitioners would tender an undertaking that, they wouldabide by the conclusions that would be drawn by the Hon’bleSupreme Court, and if the verdict is adverse to those teachers whodo not have the TET qualification or have cleared the TET after31.03.2019, or as the case may be, they would abide by the samewithout raising any cause of action. (b) Let such affidavit undertaking be filed in this Court within 15days from today and a copy be tendered to the concernedEducation Officer within the same timeline. (c) Considering the above, the proposals of the Petitioners wouldbe considered for entering their names in the ‘Shalarth-ID’ on theirown merits, save and except, the reason that they are not TETqualified. Needless to state, the proposals would be decidedwithin 30 days after the submissions of the undertakings.(d) If an adverse order is passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court bywhich the teachers are covered by clause (a), the StateGovernment would not recover the salaries already paid to them,since they have worked for those tenures and they have earnedtheir salaries for performing their duties.(e) In the event, the candidates like the Petitioners are protectedby the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s conclusions and they are held tobe qualified to continue in employment, they would be entitled forkhs/April 2024/3446 - 6 -all service benefits like promotions, increments etc.”11.He, therefore submits that whenever such anorder is passed, the candidates have to file their affidavits andthereafter, he has been entertaining their proposals withoutreferring to the lack of TET qualification, while deciding themafresh. We find that the said Officer has made out a ground onwhich the learned AGP desires to file an affidavit in reply since thisissue, especially in relation to salary grants in aid being disbursedto the candidates (TET), was never a subject which was addressedto this Court any time in the past. 12.In view of the above, we accept his apology and wepermit the learned AGP to file an affidavit to raise a ground on thesaid issue. Nevertheless, all these teachers who are before us, aregranted permanent approval on ‘no grant basis’ and, therefore,their employers are duty bound to pay their regular salaries. 13.On the returnable date, if time permits, we wouldtake up these matters for final hearing at admission stage. ( R.M.JOSHI, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)khs/April 2024/3446