Bombay High Court
Rohit Bhagwanrao Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 12 March, 2024
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
-1-
wp2771.24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2771 OF 2024
Rohit s/o Bhagwanrao Patil .. Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra & others .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION N O. 2781 OF 2024
Lata d/o Balaji Nidwade .. Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra & others .. Respondents
Mr. T. M. Venjane, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. A. B. Girase, GP along with Mr. A. A. A. Khan, AGP for the
State.
Mr. V. C. Patil, Advocate holding for Mr. U. B. Bondar, Advocate for
Respondent No. 4.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
R. M. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 12th MARCH, 2024. PER COURT :
1. The Petitioners admittedly have not passed the TET examination. The Division Bench of this Court (Coram : S. V. Gangapurwala (as His Lordship then was) and Shrikant D. Kulkarni, JJ.), vide judgment dated 11th June, 2021 delivered in Writ Petition -2- wp2771.24.odt 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 st March, 2019, such candidates cannot be retained in service and the Government will not be liable to pay their salaries. Since those 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 a co-ordinate bench of this Court, dated 10 th August, 2023 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 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.-3-
wp2771.24.odt
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. The Petitioners make a solemn statement that none of them are involved in the TET examination results scam and, based on such a statement, we are passing this order.
5. In identical set of circumstances, we have delivered an extensive order dated 7th September, 2023 in Writ Petition No. 11121/2023 (Dattatray Devidas Sonwale and another vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) with detailed reasons. We have observed in the said order in Paragraph Nos. 6 to 10 as under :-
-4-wp2771.24.odt
"6. 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 Shri Venjane, the learned Advocate for the 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.
7. The learned A.G.P. has strenuously opposed this petition, 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 -5- wp2771.24.odt service benefits can be granted to the teachers, who do not have the TET qualification.
8. This is a Court of equity and while passing orders, this Court has to balance the equities. If the interest of the teachers are 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 for payment of salaries to those teachers, who do not have requisite qualification.
9. In the light of the peculiar circumstances as noted above, we find that, it would be appropriate to bind the Petitioners with 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.
10. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 11/08/2023 is quashed and set aside, with the following directions :
-6-wp2771.24.odt
(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 it the verdict is adverse to those teachers who do not have the TET qualification or have cleared the TET after 31/03/2019, or 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 -7- wp2771.24.odt they are held to be qualified to continue in employment, they would be entitled for all service benefits like promotions, increments, etc.
7. In view of the above, by imposing the same conditions on the Petitioners, as reproduced above in Paragraph Nos. 10(a) to (e), which would squarely apply to these Petitioners and which would be binding on them to tender their affidavits/undertakings within the same time span, these Writ Petitions are partly allowed. If the Petitioners violate any of the above conditions, this order shall lose it's efficacy.
( R. M. JOSHI) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE)
JUDGE JUDGE
dyb