Disposed

Sujit Digambarrao Mugutkar v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Bombay HC8 May 2024WP/3441/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad disposed of a writ petition seeking protection of services for a teacher appointed before the Pavitra Portal. The Court directed the State to enter the petitioner's name in the Shalarth ID for salary payments if an undertaking is filed, subject to pending Supreme Court judgments on TET qualification. Petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file undertaking within 15 days; upon submission, name to be entered in Shalarth ID for salary payments; proposals to be considered within 30 days.

Sujit Digambarrao Mugutkar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:10237-DB

¶2

909-wp-3441-2024.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3441 OF 2024

¶5

Sujit Digambarrao Mugutkar

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State Of Maharashtra Through
Its Principal Secretary And Others

¶8

...

¶9

Mr. T. M. Venjane, Advocate for the Petitioner
Ms. Neha Kamble, AGP for Respondents/State

¶10

...

¶11

CORAM:RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
R. M. JOSHI, JJ
DATE:MAY 08, 2024

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

1.Office objections as regards Page Nos. 26, 27
and 29, stand overruled.

¶14

2.A common order has been passed which is
impugned in this Petition. The other Petitioner has
preferred Writ Petition No. 2471/2024 (Dattatraya
Kishanrao Miralwar vs. The State of Maharashtra and
Others). Notice has been issued in the said Petition

¶15

and it is directed that until further orders, the
services of the said Petitioner would be protected and
the management would continue to pay the salary.

¶16

3.It is undisputed that the Petitioner’s
appointment is prior to the introduction of the Pavitra

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

909-wp-3441-2024.odt

¶19

Portal System which was a result of the judgment of
this Court in Suo Moto PIL No. 2/2022. The impugned
order passed by the Education Officer makes a mention
that the appointment of the Petitioner – Sujit
Digambarrao Mugutkar is prior to the introduction of
the Pavitra Portal System and the other co-employee
Shri. Dattatraya Kishanrao Miralwar was appointed after
the introduction of Pavitra Portal System. It is
undisputed that the present Petitioner Sujit Mugutkar
has received permanent approval to his appointment
order.

¶20

4.The only issue, therefore, that remains to be
considered is that the Petitioner – Sujit has not
passed the TET exam. However, his name is not involved
in the TET exam result scam.

¶21

5.In similar circumstances, this Court has

¶22

passed several orders concluding that as the matter is
before the Hon’ble the Supreme Court on the point
whether the TET would be compulsory for candidates to
be acquired, before the cut-off date who are appointed
after the introduction of the RTE Act, those teachers
whose appointments are approved, have been granted

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

909-wp-3441-2024.odt

¶25

benefits of Pavitra Portal System despite not passing
TET, but with the caveat that such candidate should not
be involved in the TET exam result scam. Such benefits
of the Shalarth ID have been made available to said
candidates on the following conditions:

¶26

(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 if 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.

¶27

(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.

¶28

(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.

¶29

(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

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

909-wp-3441-2024.odt

¶32

duties.

¶33

(e) In the event, the candidates like the
Petitioners are protected by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court’s conclusions and they are
held to be qualified to continue in
employment, they would be entitled for all
servicebenefitslikepromotions,
increments, etc.

¶34

6.The learned Advocate for the Petitioner/Sujit
submits that he would tender the affidavit/undertaking
and abide by the above stated conditions. Let such
affidavit/undertaking be tendered with the employer as
well as with the Education Officer, within 30 days from
today. On such conditions, the name of the Petitioner
would be entered into the Shalarth ID for salary to be
paid from the grants as may be available subject to the
affidavit/undertaking which would bind the Petitioner.

¶35

7.In view of the above, this Writ Petition is
disposed off.

¶36

(R. M. JOSHI, J)

¶37

 (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J)

¶38

Malani

¶39

Page 4 of 4

Sujit Digambarrao Mugutkar v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujit Digambarrao Mugutkar v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

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

Similar cases

C Balaji Vitthalrao Vs the Union of India through Its Secretary and Others

Pravin Shaligram Dhanure Vs the Union of India through Secretary and Others

Gulab Kautik Thombare Vs the Union of India through Secretary and Others

Prabhavati Ashokrao Bhambare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bharat Hemraj Patil and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Babu Sakharam Dhere and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others