Utkarsh Devidas Bachhav and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

The submissions of the parties are based on the orders passed by this Court on 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), at Aurangabad Bench. The order dated 10^th August, 2023, passed in Writ Petition No.9944 of 2023, by the Coordinate Bench at Aurangabad, has been referred to. We have recently passed an order

¶40

2 of 7

¶41

SUNNY THOTE

¶42

(5)-To-(8)-WP-7398-2024-(C).odt

¶43

dated 12^th November, 2024 in Writ Petition No.16423 of 2023 and other connected matters (Stephie Sushant Ransing Alias Stephie Sebastian John V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.).

¶44

In view of the above, we find that in such cases before us, the following categories emerge from the record:-

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

(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.

¶48

(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.

¶49

3 of 7

¶50

SUNNY THOTE

¶51

(5)-To-(8)-WP-7398-2024-(C).odt

¶52

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.

¶53

There have been various orders passed by this Court at

¶54

the Principal Seat, the Nagpur Bench and the Aurangabad Bench, whereby 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 Coordinate Bench at Aurangabad, dated

¶55

4 of 7

¶56

SUNNY THOTE

¶57

(5)-To-(8)-WP-7398-2024-(C).odt

¶58

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 in before the Coordinate Bench which passed the order dated 10.08.2023.

¶59

In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to follow the course set out 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, hereinabove. 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. Needless to state, the conditions set out in the Paragraph No.10 in Dattatry Devidas Sonwale And Another (Supra) and the directions issued by this Court in Paragraph Nos.11, 12, 13 and 14 in the order dated 12^th

¶60

5 of 7

¶61

SUNNY THOTE

¶62

(5)-To-(8)-WP-7398-2024-(C).odt

¶63

November, 2024 in Stephie Sushant Ransing (Supra), would be applicable to all these Petitioners falling in Categories ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’.

¶64

While disposing off these Petitions, we are recording the statement 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.

¶65

In view of the above, all these Writ Petitions are

disposed off.

6 of 7

SUNNY THOTE

(5)-To-(8)-WP-7398-2024-(C).odt

¶70

Insofar as the pending matters on the file of this Court involving similar issues (which are not on board today), we call upon the learned AGP to prepare a compilation of orders passed in such matters at the Principal Seat, the Nagpur Bench and the Aurangabad Bench and prepare a synoptical note to be tendered to this Court in the matters, which would be listed before the Court in the coming future.

¶71

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

¶72

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶73

7 of 7

¶74

SUNNY THOTE

Utkarsh Devidas Bachhav and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Utkarsh Devidas Bachhav and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vanita Narayan Gote Alias Vanita Sanjiv Kunjir vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Ors.

Karuna Gautam Thombare vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Ors.

Rajyshree Madhukar Bhosale vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, School Edu. and Sports Dept. and Ors.

Usha Shantinath Khot vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary School Education and Sports Dept. and Anr.

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

Prashant Dashrath Pawaskar and Ors. vs the Executive Director, Hro, ONGC Wou