Disposed

Pradnya Narendra Kamble and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thru the Secretary, Dept. of School Edu. and Sports and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Aug 2024WP/2028/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Teachers lacking TET/CTET qualification but granted approval sought Shalarth IDs. Following earlier coordinate-bench orders, the Court quashed the non-grant of Shalarth ID and directed grant of conditional Shalarth IDs, holding Category D employees cannot be terminated for want of approval.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders denying Shalarth ID despite approval quashed; conditional Shalarth IDs to be granted subject to conditions in Dattatry Devidas Sonwale.

Pradnya Narendra Kamble and Ors. vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE

¶2

Digitally signed by TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Date: 2024.12.09 11:28:36 +0530

¶3

Trupti 1 907-wp-2028-2024.odt

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2028 OF 2024

¶6

Pradnya Narendra Kamble & Ors. … Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶7

AND

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 5646 OF 2024
Archana Bandu Divekar … Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶9

AND

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 8245 OF 2023
Dattatray Maruti Sabale … Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶11

AND

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO. 2430 OF 2024
Kishor D. Tarade & Ors. … Petitioners
versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶13

Mr.Nilesh Desai with Ms.Netra Tembe i/b. Ms.Padmaja Malgaonkar for the Petitioners in all Petitions.

¶14

Mr.V.M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent -State in WP No. 2028 of 2024.

¶15

Mr.S.H.Kankal, AGP for the Respondent -State in WP No. 8245 of 2023.

¶16

Trupti 2 907-wp-2028-2024.odt

¶17

Ms.P.J.Gavhane, AGP for the Respondent -State in WP No. 5646 of 2024.

¶18

Mr.S.B.Kalel, AGP for the Respondent -State in WP No. 2430 of 2024.

¶19

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

¶20

DATE : 3^RD DECEMBER, 2024

¶21

P.C.:

¶22

Though Writ Petition Nos. 8245 of 2023, 5646 of 2024 and 2430 of 2024, are kept along with Writ Petition No. 2028 of 2024, they are not listed on board. On mentioning, taken on board.

¶23

In all these matters, barring one Petitioner, namely, Pradnya Narendra Kamble, all other Petitioners do not have Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualification. However, all of them have been granted approval by the Education Officer. In this backdrop, we have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides and have perused the order passed by this Court at Aurangabad dated 7^th September, 2023 in Writ Petition No. 11121 of 2023 ( Dattatry Devidas Sonwale And Another V/s. The State of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others ), the order dated 10^th August, 2023 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 9944 of 2023 and the recent order passed at the Principal Seat on 12^th November, 2024 in Writ Petition No.

¶24

Trupti 3 907-wp-2028-2024.odt

¶25

16423 of 2023 and connected matters ( Stephie Sushant Ransing Alias

¶26

Stephie Sebastian John V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.)

¶27

In the order passed on 25^th November, 2024 in Writ Petition

¶28

7398 of 2024 and a group of cases ( Utkarsh Devidas Bachhav & Ors.

¶29

Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) , we have noted the following four categories:

¶30

(A) Candidates who have passed the Teacher Eligibility Test

¶31

(TET)/Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) after the cut-off date 31^st March, 2019.

¶32

(B) Candidates falling in the Category ‘A’, who have been granted approval, but are yet to receive allocation of ShalarthID.

¶33

(C) Candidates who have not cleared the TET/CTET, were appointed by a Management in an Institution which had no salary grants and such candidates were granted approval to their appointments on no grant basis by the Education Officers.

¶34

(D) Candidates who do not have TET/CTET and whose appointments are on no grant basis establishments and who have not been granted approvals by the Education Officers or the Competent Authority.

¶35

Trupti 4 907-wp-2028-2024.odt

¶36

The Petitioner, Pradnya Kamble, would fall in category A and all other candidates would fall in category C. A solemn statement is made by the learned Advocate on instructions of the Petitioners that none of the Petitioners fall under category D.

¶37

To avoid repetition, we have considered the orders passed in Dattatry Devidas Sonwale And Another (Supra) and Stephie Sushant Ransing (Supra). The said orders are explicit insofar as imposition of conditions on candidates falling in Categories ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ as above. All such candidates have been granted conditional Shalarth-ID for the reasons recorded in the said two orders. We have also recorded that the salaries, to the extent of the percentage of salary grants to be paid by the Government, would not be recovered from such candidates since they have earned their salaries by working. It goes without saying that the Managements who have appointed the teachers without the TET/CTET qualifications, would be liable to pay the remainder portion of the salary as per the approved scales, over and above the percentage of salary grants extended by the State Government.

¶38

There have been various orders passed by this Court at the Principal Seat, the Nagpur Bench and the Aurangabad Bench, whereby

¶39

Trupti 5 907-wp-2028-2024.odt

¶40

directions have been issued to consider the proposals for approvals by ignoring the lack of TET/CTET qualifications. One such order is passed by the Co-ordinate Bench at Aurangabad, dated 10^th August, 2023 in Writ Petition No.9944 of 2023. This Court had observed in Paragraph No.3 in the Order dated 7^th September, 2023, passed in Dattatry Devidas Sonwale And Another (Supra), that the Judgment of this Court dated 11^th June, 2021, delivered in Writ Petition No.4904 of 2020 (Sagar Gopichand Bahire V/s. State of Maharashtra and Others) , was not cited before the Co-ordinate Bench, which passed the order dated 10.08.2023.

¶41

In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to follow the course adopted in the order dated 12^th November, 2024 in Stephie Sushant Ransing (Supra), to the extent of Categories ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ recorded in Paragraph No.3, herein above. Insofar as the candidates falling in Category ‘D’ set out above, keeping in view the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in St.Ulai High School V/s. Devendraprasad Jagannath Singh, 2007 (1) Mh.L.J. 597, the services of such Employees would not be terminated for lack of approval and they would continue to draw salary from the coffers of the Employer/Management.

¶42

Trupti 6 907-wp-2028-2024.odt

¶43

Needless to state, the conditions set out in the Paragraph

¶44

No.10 in Dattatry Devidas Sonwale And Another (Supra) and the

¶45

directions issued by this Court in Paragraph Nos.11, 12, 13 and 14 in the order dated 12^th November, 2024 in Stephie Sushant Ransing (Supra), would be applicable to all these Petitioners falling in Categories ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’.

¶46

In Utkarsh Devidas Bachhav & Ors. (supra), we have recorded the submissions of the learned Advocate General that, it is one thing to say that the salaries paid from the salary grants extended by the Government to the Employees falling in Categories ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’, should not be recovered because they have worked. However, since the Employers have appointed candidates without acquisition of the TET certificate and have received approvals when the candidates were appointed on no grant basis, if such candidates are being paid the salaries to the extent of the proportion of the grants extended by the State Government, the right to recover such amounts from the Management, be left open. We are, therefore, leaving this issue open to be considered in an appropriate case.

¶47

In the light of the above, these Writ Petitions are disposed off.

¶48

Trupti 7 907-wp-2028-2024.odt

¶49

The impugned orders to the extent of non-grant of the Shalarth ID, despite approval having been granted, are quashed and set aside and a conditional Shalarth ID shall be granted to these Petitioners by imposing the same conditions as have been set out in Dattatry Devidas Sonwale And Another (supra).

¶50

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE,J.) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

Pradnya Narendra Kamble and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thru the Secretary, Dept. of School Edu. and Sports and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradnya Narendra Kamble and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thru the Secretary, Dept. of School Edu. and Sports and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Uttam Rajaram Kamble vs the Food Corporation of India

Rajendra Sadashiv Beske and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Rohan Rajendra Katwate and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary Ministry of Higher and Technical Education and Ors.

Smt. Vijaya Vilas Dhaigude vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary Finance Dept. and Ors.

Padmabhushan Vasantdada Patil Institute of Technolony, Budhgaon and Anr. vs Shri. Ravindra Shamrao Kadam and Anr.

Pawan Badri Singh vs the State of Maharashtra School Education Dept Throu. Its Principal Sec. and Ors.