Bombay High Court
The Maharashtra Rajya Padvidhar ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thru The ... on 16 June, 2023
Author: Neela Gokhale
Bench: G.S. Patel, Neela Gokhale
902-ASWP-2622-2023+.DOC
Ashwini
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2622 OF 2023
Rajkumar Laxman Giri & Ors ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, ...Respondents
Department of School Education and Sports &
Ors
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5468 OF 2023
The Maharashtra Rajya Padvidhar Prathamik ...Petitioners
Shikshak & Ors
Versus
The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary ...Respondents
& Ors
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12016 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 20435 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 12016 OF 2022
The Maharashtra Rajya Padvidhar Prathamik ...Petitioners
Shikshan V & Ors
Versus
The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary ...Respondents
Page 1 of 4
16th June 2023
::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2023 03:07:09 :::
902-ASWP-2622-2023+.DOC
& Ors
Mr Suresh Pakale, Senior Advocate, with Sonali Kulkarni & Nilesh
Desai, for the Petitioner in WP/2622/2023, WP/5468/2023 &
WP/12016/2023.
Ms Shehnaz V Bharucha, i/b AA Ansari, for Respondent No. 2 in
WP/12016/2022 & WP/9912/2022.
Mr A Naik, with Siddhesh Birjada, i/b Ashwin Kapadnis, for
Respondent No. 5.
Mrs AA Purav, AGP, for the Respondent-State.
Ms Sejal Todkar, i/b Balaji Shinde, for Intervener in
IAST/29995/2022 in WP/12016/2022.
Mr Sharad S Gosavi, Director of Education Department, Pune, is
present.
CORAM G.S. Patel &
Neela Gokhale, JJ.
DATED: 16th June 2023 PC:-
1. There is an Affidavit in Reply on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in Writ Petition No. 2622 of 2023. Corresponding Affidavits are to be filed in the companion Petitions.
2. We have heard Mr Pakale and Ms Kulkarni on behalf of the Petitioners and Mrs Purav for the State Government briefly. We believe that the officers of the State Government need to make a more detailed report to the Court and put this on Affidavit. These Petitions cannot be disposed of in generalities. Some of these teachers, as Mr Pakale points out, have been working since 1995. As Ms Kulkarni had indicated on the very first date, these teachers are now being accused of being over-qualified, meaning that they Page 2 of 4 16th June 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2023 03:07:09 ::: 902-ASWP-2622-2023+.DOC possess graduate degrees and either a B. Ed or D. Ed but are yet teaching what is called the upper or senior primary, i.e., 6th to 8th standards. Now the Affidavit in Reply seems to indicate that as many as 75% of these persons will be discontinued from service and some others, but with far lower qualifications, will be employed in their place. That has been the complaint from day one and seems prima facie to be borne out by this Affidavit in Reply.
3. If on the other hand the submission is that the employment of the Petitioners is unaffected by the GRs in question and by what is said to be in the Affidavit "a conversion in a new form of transition to the Act of 2009" meaning the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, then, it simply cannot be that in the so-called 'transition' process serving primary teachers with graduate degrees and a B. Ed/D. Ed will be displaced by persons who have lesser qualifications.
4. Paragraph 8 of the Reply at page 252 says that there are insufficient primary teachers with qualifications in science and mathematics. But it says nothing at all about existing graduate teachers with B. Ed degrees who are already teaching the 6th to 8th classes.
5. It is impossible to deal with this on a general basis. We must understand the fate and future of every single one of the Petitioners. This is the only way that a question of classification can be addressed. If some teachers are to be classified distinctly, then it must be shown that the classification is rational and not Page 3 of 4 16th June 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2023 03:07:09 ::: 902-ASWP-2622-2023+.DOC unconstitutional. It must bear a demonstrable nexus to the purpose sought to be achieved. That branch of the law is well settled. All teachers cannot be put into the same category and, therefore, we require a more comprehensive Reply dealing with every one of the Petitioners (by serial number instead of name if necessary and if more convenient, explaining clearly how many of the teachers will be adversely affected by this new transition process and on what basis. Mrs Purav says that this exercise will take some time. We agree. It will. She states that material will be ready by 1st August 2023. That Affidavit is to be filed and served by 1st August 2023.
6. List the matter for directions on 2nd August 2023.
7. Previous ad-interim orders, if any, to continue until the next date.
8. We note that the Advocate for the National Council for Teacher Education ("NCTE") has no instructions in the matter.
(Neela Gokhale, J) (G. S. Patel, J) Page 4 of 4 16th June 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2023 03:07:09 :::