Judgment · Supreme Court

2.WP.4242.20251/3IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH, NAGPURWRIT PETITION NO. 4242 OF 2025Sanjay S/o. Sundarshah Jumnake & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.______________________________________________________________________________Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.Mr. S.S. Taram, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. H.D. Marathe, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 8/State. -------------------------------CORAM: ANIL S. KILOR AND R AJ D. WAKODE , JJ. DATE:02.02.2026Heard Mr. S.S. Taram, learned counsel for thepetitioners.2.The petitioners claim to have worked on teaching andnon-teaching posts in the Tribal Development Department. 3.In this petition, a prayer is made to quash and set asidethe Government Resolution (GR) dated 21/05/2025, wherebyrespondent No.1 had proposed to fill the ad-hoc posts byoutsourcing agencies. Further, consequent prayers regardingregularization of service and payment of minimum wages werealso made.4.The issue involved regarding the regularization andpermanency has been answered succinctly by this Court atAurangabad Bench in the judgment dated 19/09/2025 in WritPetition No. 11349/2025 (Nitin Baliram Gharat and Ors. V/s.The State of Maharashtra and ors.) and other connectedpetitions. In the said judgment, this Court has dealt withjudicial developments and policy taken by the State in detail. The following observations would be relevant for deciding thecontroversy:-

2.WP.4242.20252/3“12. All such Petitioners, who have not completed 10 yearsin service, either in the teaching or non-teaching category, would not stand protected. Nevertheless, they would beentitled, along with all others, for parity in wages in thelight of order of this Court passed in Interim ApplicationNo. 1418 of 2024 in Writ Petition No. 13177 of 2023, on29th November 2024 (Sandip Ganpat Hadbal & Ors. v/s.The State of Maharashtra & Ors.).”5.In the aforesaid background, the same analogy isadopted here and the present petition is disposed of as perdirections given in para 10 to 14 in the case of Nitin BaliramGharat (supra), which are reproduced as under:-“10. In view of the above, we observe that though, on the onehand, the State Government would carry out a verificationexercise as is directed in Madhukar Bhagwanrao Sadgir (supra)and Pandurang Hari Shelke (supra), those teachers who do nothave the TET qualification, would not be terminated andwould be continued in employment for a further period of 2years with effect from 1" September, 2025 until 1™September 2027, to enable them to acquire the TETqualification, failing which, their contractual service would bebrought to an end from 2nd September 2027.11. Needless to state, those who acquire the STET or CTETqualification within such period, would then be grantedregularization as 'Assistant Teachers' depending on theavailability of the permanent vacant posts. If the posts haveexhausted, they would be continued until further vacanciesarise and would be absorbed in a staggered manner.12. All such Petitioners, who have not completed 10 years inservice, either in the teaching or non-teaching category, wouldnot stand protected. Nevertheless, they would be entitled, along with all others, for parity in wages in the light of order ofthis Court passed in Interim Application No. 1418 of 2024 inWrit Petition No. 13177 of 2023, on 29th November 2024(Sandip Ganpat Hadbal & Ors. v/s. The State of Maharashtra& Ors.).13. As is held in paragraph no. 12 in Madhukar BhagwanraoSadgir (supra), the concerned department has to verify as towhich of the Petitioners have completed 10 years of service as

2.WP.4242.20253/3Teachers, were interviewed prior to their appointment andwere found qualified and appointed. If this aspect is not found, then a reasoned order has to be passed while rejecting theclaim.14. Insofar as those Petitioners, who have completed 10years in service on contractual basis and do not fall in theTeachers' Category (Non-teaching Staff), they would beconsidered depending on the availability of permanentvacant posts, in the light of the guidelines set out in MadhukarBhagwanrao Sadgir (supra) and Pandurang Hari Shelke(supra) and the policy of State Government. If any of thePetitioners is found to be ineligible for whatever reason, as washeld in Pandurang Hari Shelke (supra), the Governmentwould pass a reasoned order and the said order would beserved upon the concerned Petitioner, who would then be atliberty to assail the said decision before theappropriate forum.”6. In the aforesaid background, respondents are directed toact in terms of para 5 of this order and as passed in the case ofNitin Baliram Gharat (supra). Needless to mention that weexpect that the concerned authorities to complete the saidexercise within a period of 180 days. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)Vijaykumar