Bombay High Court
Maharashtra Urdu Education Society ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 19 April, 2024
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
1 wp 15044.2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 15044 OF 2023
1. Maharashtra Urdu Education Society,
Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani,
Through it's Secretary,
Shaikh Anwar s/o Shaikh Ahmed,
age 57 years, Occ. Business,
R/o Darga Road, Near Kazi Masjid,
Galib Nagar, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist Parbhani.
2. Shafi Mohammad Khan s/o Mansoor Khan
age 32 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o Wangi Road, Yusuf Colony,
Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.
3. Syed Naushad s/o Syed Subhan,
age 29 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o Railway Colony, Purna,
Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani.
4. Almas Abdul Sajid,
age 30 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o Dargah Road, Near Kazi Masjid,
Turabul Hak Nagar, Parbhani,
Tq & Dist. Parbhani Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Maharashtra
Through It's Secretary
School Education and Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. The Deputy Director of Education,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
3. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Parbhani. Respondents.
.....
2 wp 15044.2023.odt
...
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Moin Shaikh h/f Mr. S.S. Kazi
AGP for Respondents no.1 & 2 : Mrs. Kalpalata Patil
Bharaswadkar
Advocate for Respondents no.3: Mr. B.A. Shinde
.....
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
DATED : April 19, 2024
...
FINAL ORDER :- (Per S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.)
1. The Petitioners have approached this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning the order
dated 10.10.2023 passed by Respondent No.2 - The Deputy
Director of Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad
declining to include name of the petitioner nos.2 to 4 in
Shalartha Pranali on the ground that they are non-compliant
with TET qualification.
2. The petitioners no.2 to 4 contend that they came
to be appointed in the Minority Institution by following due
process of law as assistant teachers. Respondent No.3 - the
Education Officer has granted approvals to their appointments
and even granted continuation after completion of the period
of service as Shikshan Sevak. The State of Maharashtra
sanctioned 20% grant-in-aid in favour of Petitioner no.1-School
vide Government Resolution dated 6.2.2023. The post held by
the petitioners is entitled to receive 20% grants w.e.f. 1.1.2023.
The Petitioner no.1-School forwarded proposal for inclusion of
names in the "Shalartha Pranali" and release admissible salary
3 wp 15044.2023.odt
grants to them. However, the Education Officer rejected the
proposal giving the reason that petitioners nos.2 to 4 were non
compliant with the TET qualification.
3. Mr. Moin Shaikh h/f Mr. S.S. Kazi, learned
advocate appearing for the petitioners invites our attention to
the approvals granted by the Education Officer to the
appointments of the petitioners and subsequent orders of
continuation on non-grant basis. He would submit that the
issue as regards to applicability of TET qualification to the
appointments of the teachers in the Minority Institution is
subjudiced before the Supreme Court of India.
4. He further relies upon the order of this Court in
Writ Petition No.9587 of 2022 with connection petitions
(Abdul Azim Abdul Alim and anr. Vs. The State of
Maharashtra) dated 26.9.2022 to contend that in similar
circumstances conditional approvals have been granted by this
Court with further directions to release the salary to the
teachers, who were not compliant with TET qualification.
5. Mrs Bharaswadkar, learned AGP appearing for
respondent nos.1 and 2 supports the impugned order and
submits that this Court has already held that TET qualification
is mandatory for appointment of teachers. Since petitioners are
non-compliant of such requirement, the Education Officer has
refused to entertain proposal for inclusion in "Shalartha
System" or release grant-in-aid.
4 wp 15044.2023.odt
6. We have considered the submissions advanced by
learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. We
have perused the documents annexed alongwith the petition.
Apparently, the petitioners have been appointed as teachers in
the minority institution. At the time of their appointments,
School was run on non-grant basis, however, subsequently held
to be eligible for grant-in-aid in phased manner. First
installment of 20% grant-in-aid is approved to the school. The
petitioners are working since the date of their appointment
The Education Officer has also approved continuation of their
services. As per Government Resolution dated 6.2.2023
additional divisions for 1st to 4th standard in the school is held
eligible for 20% grant-in-aid, for which nine posts are
sanctioned. In pursuance of the aforesaid decision of the
Government, a proposal was forwarded to include name of the
teachers in 'Shalarth Pranali' for release of 20% grant-in-aid.
However, under the impugned order, the Education Officer
declined to consider their claim for the reason that petitioners
are not complaint with TET qualification in terms of the
Government Resolution dated 13.2.2013. It cannot be
disputed that under the Government Resolution dated
13.2.2013 the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) is made
compulsory for appointment of the teachers. The issue in that
regards is decided by this Court upholding condition of TET
qualification. Special Leave Petition filed against such decision
is pending before the Supreme Court of India. So far as
applicability of the TET qualification for appointments of the
teachers in Minority Institution, it is subjudiced before the
Supreme Court of India in the matter of Director of School
5 wp 15044.2023.odt
Education, Chennai and another Vs. B. Annie Packiarani Bai
and another in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.17702 of
2021 wherein, while granting special leave, specific issue has
been framed in the order dated 14.2.2022, which states as
under :-
Important question of law which is
raised in the present SLP is as under :-
"whether the Department can insist for
TET examination passed in case of a
teacher of a Minority Institution and
whether providing such a qualification
would effect any or rights of minority
institution guaranteed under the
Constitution of India ?"
7. In that view of the matter, this Court framed
modality to be applied pending decision of supreme court.
Several orders protecting interest of the similarly situated
teachers have been passed with direction to release salary
subject to condition that the teachers shall be bound by final
outcome of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court as
regards to applicability of the TET qualification.
8. In the present case, there is no dispute that the
petitioners were appointed in the minority school and they
hold requisite qualification prescribed for Assistant Teacher
except TET as introduced under the Government Resolution
dated 13.2.2013. The Education Officer has already granted
approval to their appointments and even granted continuation
to services. The issue whether petitioners were qualified to be
appointed or not has been examined by the Education Officer
6 wp 15044.2023.odt
while granting approval. However, vide the impugned order,
proposal for inclusion of their names in Shalartha Pranali is
declined. Such an approach of the Respondent-Education
Officer cannot be countenanced. However, pending the issue
as regards to the applicability of TET qualification for
appointments made prior to 30.3.2019, it would be
appropriate to direct respondent no.3 to take further steps to
include petitioners name in the 'Shalarth Pranali' and release
grant-in-aid as admissible to their post subject to condition that
the petitioners would abide by the decision rendered by the
Supreme Court in pending Civil Appeal in case of Director of
School Education, Chennai and another Vs. B. Annie Packiarani
Bai and another (supra). Hence, we proceed to pass the
following order.
ORDER
i. The Writ Petition is partly allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 10.10.2023 passed by Respondent No.2-the Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad is hereby quashed and set aside.
iii. Respondent No.3 - The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Parbhani is directed to take necessary steps to release 20% grant-in-aid against the post held by the petitioners and grant 'Shalartha ID' to them subject to following conditions :-
7 wp 15044.2023.odt a] The petitioners shall tender an undertaking that they would abide by the conclusions that would be drawn by the Supreme Court of India, and, if the verdict of the Supreme Court upholds applicability of TET qualifications, they would abide by the same without raising any objections or they shall not claim any equity.
b] Petitioners shall file an affidavit in the form of undertaking in this Court within a period of three (3) weeks from today and tender a copy of such an affidavit or undertaking to the concerned Education Officer within the same time.
c] If the adverse order is passed by the Supreme Court of India, the State Government would not recover the salaries already paid/released to the petitioners.
d] The petitioners would be entitled for service benefits like increments, promotion, etc only if the Supreme Court concludes that TET qualification is not compulsory for the Teachers in the minority institution.
e] Respondent no.3 shall take necessary steps within a period of three (3) moths and forward the proposals to the office of Respondent no.2, who shall not reject 'Shalartha ID' to the 8 wp 15044.2023.odt petitioners on the ground that they are non compliant with TET qualification.
iv. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed off in above terms. No costs.
( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI )
JUDGE JUDGE
***
aaa/- (f)