Pathan Inayat Rabbani v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

wp-15416.251 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.15416 OF 2025Pathan Inayat Rabbani, Age-29 years, Occu:Service,R/o-Ranjni, Taluka-Kallamb, District-Dharashiv (Osmanabad). ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai,2) The Education Officer, Secondary Education, Zilla Parishad, Dharashiv (Osmanabad),3) Dnyansagar Education Society, Latur, Through its Secretary, Shaikh Mujahid Hamid, Age-Major, Occu: Secretary of Respondent No.3 Society, R/o-Ausa, District-Latur,4) Hanuman Vidyalaya, Ghargaon, Taluka-Kallamb, District-Osmanabad, Through Principal, Jadhavar Arun Baburao, Age-56 years, Occu:Service, R/o-Tadgaon, Taluka-Kallamb, District-Osmanabad. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Shaikh Tarek Mobin H. Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. V.M. Kagne, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Mudassir Shaikh Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. ... wp-15416.252 CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ. DATE : 18th DECEMBER, 2025 ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :1.The present Petition is filed for following reliefs:-“A) Hold and declare that, the impugned communicationdated 20.05.2025 bearing outward No.tk-dza-fti/kk@f’k{k.k@ekfo&8991@2025 rejecting the approval to thepost of Shikshan Sevak of Petitioner is illegal arbitrary andbad in law and quash and set aside the same by issuing Writof mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ in likenature and for that purpose issue necessary orders.B) Issue Writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriateWrit in like nature thereby direct the respondent No.2 togrant approval to the post of petitioner as Shikshan Sevak byquashing and setting aside the impugned communicationdated 20.05.2025 issued by respondent No. 2 bearingOurward No.tk-dza-fti/kk@f’k{k.k@ekfo&8991@2025 and for thatpurpose issue necessary orders.” 2.Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner, learned AGP forthe State, learned Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.3and 4.3.Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that videappointment order dated 10th August 2024, the petitioner came wp-15416.253to be appointed as Shikshan Sevak in respondent No.4 school, which is run by respondent No.4 society. Respondent No.3 is theminority institution under Article 30 of the Constitution of Indiaand accordingly it has right to appoint the employees of itschoice. The petitioner came to be appointed by respondent Nos.3and 4, by following due procedure of law. 4.Respondent No.3 society moved proposal beforerespondent No.2 – the Education Officer and thereby soughtapproval to the appointment of the petitioner, however, it cameto be rejected by impugned order dated 20th May 2025, issuedby respondent No.2, on the sole ground that the petitioner is notpossessing TET qualification. Upon aforesaid rejection, the freshproposal was submitted on 26th May 2025, before the office ofDeputy Director of Education, Latur Region by respondent No.4praying for grant of approval to the post of petitioner. The saidproposal is pending till date without adjudication. ThoughGrievance Committee is constituted for deciding the grievancesregarding approval, as per Government Resolution dated 27thMarch 2024 and the same is headed by the Deputy Director ofEducation, Latur for Latur region, the said constitution ofGrievance Committee was challenged and the same is referred toLarger Bench by the Hon’ble Division Bench at Nagpur vide order wp-15416.254dated 19th December 2024, passed in Shri Agrasen ShikshanSanstha, Gondia and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, Writ Petition No.8322 of 2023.5.Learned Advocate for the petitioner relies on the recentdecision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trustvs. the State of Maharashtra and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (SC)861, wherein for all other institutions, the qualification of theteacher would be successful completion of TET examination wasupheld, however, as regards the minority institutions areconcerned, the reference has been made to the Larger Bench. Infact, it was on the basis of the doubt expressed as to whetherthe decision in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust vs. Unionof India, (2014) 8 SCC 1, has been correctly decided in respectof the exemption of the application of the Right of Children toFree and Compulsory Education Act, 2009,(in short, “RTE Act“),to minority schools whether aided or un-aided, falling underClause 1 of Article 30 of the Constitution of India.6.When the reference is still pending, there ought not tohave been rejection and further it was specifically observed inthe said decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that till thereference is decided, there shall be exemption of the schools, wp-15416.255which are by minority, whether religious or linguistic, from theprovisions of the RTE Act.7.The learned Advocate for the petitioner further relies onthe decision in Sadaf Immamoddin Masood vs. the State ofMaharashtra and Others; Writ Petition No.6894 of 2023, decidedon 02.11.2023, Ekta Education Society and Others vs. the Stateof Maharashtra and another; Writ Petition No.3755 of 2023,decided on 12.03.2024, Zakir Husain Marathi Primary SchoolMukund Nagar, through Rehman Shafi Kazi vs. the State ofMaharashtra and Others; Writ Petition No. 8891 of 2018, decidedon 29.08.2019, wherein the question of applicability of TETExamination to the minority institutions was considered.8.The learned AGP contends that the factual situation isstated in the impugned orders, which are in consonance with theGovernment Resolutions. 9.The fact, which cannot be ignored, is that respondent No.3is a minority society in view of the certificate issued by the StateGovernment in its Minorities Development Department, dated 1stDecember 2008. Respondent No.4 school is run by respondentNo.3 society. wp-15416.25610.The advertisement for the post appears to have beenissued and then after following the procedure, petitioner came tobe appointed. In the impugned order, the only objection was inrespect of TET examination, as it was found that the petitionerhad not passed TET examination. Now, there is a decisionwherein there is a clarity given regarding applicability of RTE Actand the TET qualification in Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust vs.the State of Maharashtra and Others, (supra). Paragraph No. 214of the decision is very much clear which runs thus :-“214.Per the detailed discussions above and resting on the same, we hold that the provisions of the RTE Act have to be complied withby all schools as defined in Section 2(n) of the RTE Act except theschools established and administered by the minority – whetherreligious or linguistic – till such time the reference is decided andsubject to the answers to the questions formulated above undersection VII. Logically, it would follow that in-service teachers(irrespective of the length of their service) would also be requiredto qualify the TET to continue in service.”11.Therefore, till the reference is decided, the provisions ofRTE Act are required to be complied with by all the schools asdefined in Section 2(n) of the RTE Act, except the schoolsestablished and administered by the minority. The said reasonquoted in the impugned communications/orders cannot be saidto be a justifiable ground for rejection. wp-15416.25712.In view of the above circumstances, the Writ Petitionstands partly allowed. The impugned communication dated 20thMay 2025, is hereby quashed and set aside. 13.We direct respondent No.2 to consider the proposal dated22nd August 2024, forwarded by respondent No.3 in respect ofapproval to the appointment of petitioner, without insisting onTET qualification, in view of Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust vs.the State of Maharashtra and Others, (supra). 14.Such decision to be taken by respondent No.2 within aperiod of one month from today. [HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGEasb/NOV25