RAMAKANT KASHINATH RATHOD v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS AND
Case Details
12798.23wp etc (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 89 WRIT PETITION NO.12798 OF 2023 RAMAKANT KASHINATH RATHOD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS AND 91 WRIT PETITION NO.12800 OF 2023 UMESH AVINASH BURGE AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS AND 107 WRIT PETITION NO.12822 OF 2023 SATISH ASHOK SHETE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS AND 113 WRIT PETITION NO.12829 OF 2023 ASHWINI DNYANOBA SURYAWANSHI AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS AND 160 WRIT PETITION NO.12902 OF 2023 SUJATA PRAKASH DEHADE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS 12798.23wp etc (2) AND 975 WRIT PETITION NO.13015 OF 2023 NITIN KRUSHNA SAGADE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS AND P-1 WRIT PETITION NO.13002 OF 2023 BAIG TAYYAB MAINU VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS …. Mr T. M. Venjane, Advocate for Petitioners in WP Nos.13002/23, 12902/23, 12829/23,12822/23, 12800/23 and 12798/23 Mr V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for Petitioner in WP/13015/2023 Mr A. V. Deshmukh, Mr P. S. Patil, Mr S. G. Karlekar and Mr V. M. Kagne, A.G.Ps. for Respondents/State in respective Petitions CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE : 17th October, 2023 PER COURT: 1. Writ Petition No.13002/2023 was not on board. Mentioned. Taken on the Production Board. 2. The Petitioners in all these Writ Petitions admittedly have not passed their Teachers Eligibility Test (TET). Admittedly, the Division Bench of this Court [Coram : S. V. Gangapurwala (as 12798.23wp etc (3)
Legal Reasoning
above, we find that, it would be appropriate to bind the Petitioners to an undertaking that, they would abide by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and if it is concluded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, they cannot be continued in employment, they would suffer the consequences. By filing such undertaking, the equities would be balanced while passing an order granting them the salaries by allotment of ‘Shalarth-ID’. Needless to state that, if the Hon'ble Supreme Court concludes that the TET is mandatory, such teachers will then have to be removed from employment. 11. In view of the above, all these Writ Petitions are partly allowed. The impugned orders in all these Writ Petitions are quashed and set aside, with the following directions :- (a) The Petitioners would tender an undertaking that, they would abide by the conclusions, that would be drawn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and if the verdict is adverse to those teachers who do not have the TET qualification or have cleared the TET after 31/03/2019, or 12798.23wp etc (8) as the case may be, they would abide by the same without raising any cause of action. (b) Let such affidavit undertaking be filed in this Court within 15 days from today and a copy be tendered to the concerned Education Officer, within the same timeline. (c) Considering the above, the proposals of the Petitioners would be considered for entering their names in the ‘Shalarth-ID’, on their own merits, save and except, the reason that they are not TET qualified. Needless to state, the proposals would be decided within 30 days after the submissions of the undertakings. (d) If an adverse order is passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by which the teachers are covered by clause (a), the State Government would not recover the salaries already paid to them, since they have worked for those tenures and they have earned their salaries for performing their duties. (e) In the event, the candidates like the Petitioners are protected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court’s conclusions, and they are held to be qualified to continue in employment, they would be entitled for all service benefits like promotions, increments, etc. (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) sjk
Arguments
His Lordship then was) and Shrikant D. Kulkarni, JJ.], vide judgment dated 11/06/2021, delivered in Writ Petition No.4904/2020 (Sagar Gopichand Bahire Vs. State of Maharashtra and others) and a group of Petitions, concluded that, if a candidate does not have the TET qualification prior to 31/03/2019, such candidates cannot be retained in service and the Government will not be liable to pay their salaries. Since the Petitioners desired to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court protected the status of the teachers as on date by directing status-quo to be maintained. The matter has travelled to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civ.) No.8300/2021 (Priti Ravindra Warghante and others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and others) and a group of Petitions, and the status-quo order has been continued. 3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners points out the order passed by this Court (Coram : Mangesh S. Patil and Shailesh P. Brahme, JJ.), dated 10/08/2023, passed in Writ Petition No.9944/2023. Paragraph Nos.1 to 4 of the said order read as under :- “1. The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the respondent no.4/Education Officer (Secondary), Aurangabad, refusing to grant permission for including his 12798.23wp etc (4) name in the online portal for disbursement of salary on the ground that he had not passed Teacher Eligibility Test examination (T.E.T.) as per the Government decision dated 13.02.2013. 2. It is common knowledge that the subject pertaining to the T.E.T. qualification is already sub-judice before the Supreme Court which has directed status-quo to be maintained. 3. In the light of above, we quash and set aside the impugned order, direct the respondent no.4 to pass order afresh, which shall not be by resorting to the ground which has been mentioned in the impugned communication. 4. The decision shall be taken as expeditiously as possible and in any case within six weeks. This order shall be subject to the final outcome of the matter before the Supreme Court.” 4. It is apparent that the judgment of this Court, dated 11/06/2021 in Sagar Gopichand Bahire (supra), was not brought to the notice of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Status-quo was ordered and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has continued the said order. 5. Nevertheless, the predicament before us is, as to how far these Petitioners can survive with meager salaries or no salary at all, only on the ground that they are not TET qualified. This Court concluded that TET under the Right of Children to Free and 12798.23wp etc (5) Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short ‘the 2009 Act’) is mandatory. The Hon’ble Supreme Court would now decide the issue. Until then, all the teachers are protected and the status-quo in their employment is maintained. 6. There are cases, wherein the teachers before us contend that the Management did not pay them at all and they are working without salaries. Unless their names are included in the ‘Shalarth Pranali’, they are not entitled for salary through the grants may be available. 7. We quite appreciate the difficulties of these Petitioners, who either have to survive without salary or have to survive on a stipend. No doubt, the fault lies with these Petitioners, since they did not pass the TET and have created a problem for themselves. Nevertheless, as has been rightly canvassed by the learned Advocates for these Petitioners that, the TET qualification is not mandatory, or will be mandatory only for those teachers, who have been appointed after the introduction of the 2009 Act, which came into operation on 01/04/2010. The orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would be binding upon all. 12798.23wp etc (6) 8. The learned A.G.Ps. have strenuously opposed these Petitions, contending that such Petitions are likely to open a pandora’s box. These teachers, who are not TET qualified, would be approaching this Court for seeking orders for entering their names in the ‘Shalarth Pranali’. They would draw salaries scales as are available through the salary grants extended by the Government, which are available only to those teachers, who have requisite qualification. He raises a dispute of salary grants to the teachers, who do not have requisite qualification. He reminds us of the judgment delivered by this Court in Sagar Gopichand Bahire (supra), wherein this Court has finally concluded that, the teachers without TET need to be terminated. He further submits that, since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed status-quo to be maintained, it would not mean that, further service benefits can be granted to the teachers, who do not have the TET qualification. 9. This is a Court of equity and while passing orders, this Court has to balance the equities. If the interest of the teachers is to be protected by passing a conditional or a qualified order, the interest of the State Government, which extends the salary grants, also has to take into account, as the State Government insists that their salary grants should not be utilized 12798.23wp etc (7) for payment of salaries to those teachers, who do not have requisite qualification. 10. In the light of the peculiar circumstances as noted