Swapnil Balaji Boyane vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Swapnil Balaji Boyane vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed partly; Education Officer directed to reconsider the approval proposal on its own merits on all counts without rejecting it on the ground of non-clearance of TET, subject to the petitioner's undertaking that any approval would be subject to the final outcome of the matter before the Supreme Court; fresh order to be passed within four weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether approval of the petitioner's appointment as Shikshan Sevak in a school stated to be a minority school may be refused solely on the ground that the petitioner has not passed/cleared TET, while the mandatory nature of TET in light of Article 30 of the Constitution is pending before the Supreme Court.

Court's answer

The writ petition is allowed partly: the Education Officer shall reconsider the proposal on its own merits on all counts, but shall not reject it on the ground that the petitioner has not passed the TET.

Ratio / Principle

Any approval granted to the petitioner would be subject to the final outcome of the pending matter before the Supreme Court, and the petitioner was required to furnish an undertaking to that effect.

Key takeaways

The Education Officer shall pass the fresh order as expeditiously as possible and in any case within four weeks.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Per court (Mangesh S. Patil & Shailesh P. Brahme, JJ.), Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, 18 October 2024: Partly allowed W.P. No. 11698 of 2024, in which the petitioner challenged the Education Officer's order dated 14.10.2024 refusing approval to his appointment as a Shikshan Sevak by the Management in a school stated to be a minority school, solely because he had not passed/cleared TET. Since the question of the mandatory nature of TET in light of Article 30 of the Constitution is pending before the Supreme Court, the Division Bench followed its course in several similar matters and directed the Education Officer to reconsider the proposal on its own merits on all counts without rejecting it on the TET ground. Approval, if granted, is to be subject to the final outcome of the Supreme Court matter, for which the petitioner tendered an undertaking across the bar, taken on record. Fresh order ordered within four weeks.

2024:BHC-AUG:25654-DB

1 952-.WP-11698-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 11698 OF 2024

SWAPNIL BALAJI BOYANE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Shaikh Tarek Mobin H. AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. S.R. Yadav Lonikar Advocate for Respondent No.3 & 4 : Mr. A. R. Syed

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ. DATE : 18 OCTOBER 2024

PER COURT :

. The petitioner is challenging the order of respondent no.2/ Education Officer dated 14.10.2024, whereby he has refused to grant approval to the petitioner’s appointment as a Shikshan Sevak by the respondent no.3/Management in the respondent no.4/school being run by it, which is stated to be a minority school, only on the ground that the petitioner has not passed/cleared TET.

The issue as regards mandatory nature of the TET in the light of Article 30 of the Constitution has been pending with the Supreme Court.

In several such matters, we have been directing the Education Officers to take fresh decision without resorting to the

2 952-.WP-11698-2024.doc

reasoning as mentioned in the impugned order regarding nonclearance of TET. We follow the same course.

The writ petition is allowed partly. The Education Officer shall reconsider the proposal on its own merits on all counts, but shall not reject it on the ground that the petitioner has not passed the TET.

However the petitioner shall furnish an undertaking that if at all he is granted approval. Such approval would be subject to the final outcome of the matter before the Supreme Court.

The learned advocate for the petitioner tenders across the bar such affidavit/undertaking. It is taken on record.

The Education Officer shall pass the fresh order as expeditiously as possible and in any case within four weeks.

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]

Najeeb..