Ku. Neeta Amrutlal Shahu Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of School Education, Mumbai and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ku. Neeta Amrutlal Shahu Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of School Education, Mumbai and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Declaration that clearance of TET is not mandatory for the petitioner; the writ petition was accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether it is mandatory for the petitioner to clear the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) for approval of her appointment, given that the approval directed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4672/2024 was subject to clearance of TET, while the Government Resolution dated 13th February 2013 (modified by corrigenda dated 6th March 2013 and 20th August 2013) states that TET is not mandatory for candidates like the petitioner.

Court's answer

The Court declared that it is not mandatory for the petitioner to clear TET, having regard to the State Government's clarification in the corrigendum dated 6th March 2013 to the Government Resolution dated 13th February 2013 (further modified on 20th August 2013), brought on record through the petitioner's additional affidavit dated 9th January 2025; the respondents' counsel did not contest these submissions.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No.2815 of 2019 (neutral citation 2025:BHC-NAG:369-DB) — Ku. Neeta Amrutlal Shahu v. State of Maharashtra and ors., High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench (Nitin W. Sambre and Mrs Vrushali V. Joshi, JJ.), decided January 10, 2025. By an earlier order dated 4th March 2015 in Writ Petition No.4672/2024 (paras 7-8), respondents No.3 and 4 were directed to appoint the petitioner on the vacancy arising on the retirement of Smt. Vasant Sippi with effect from 1.6.2016 (or earlier upon voluntary retirement), and respondent no.2 - Education Officer, Zilla Parishad was to grant approval, such approval being subject to clearance of TET. Counsel for the petitioner drew attention to the Government Resolution dated 13th February 2013, modified by Corrigenda dated 6th March 2013 and 20th August 2013, stating that TET is not mandatory for candidates like the petitioner; these were produced through an additional affidavit dated 9th January 2025 and were not contested by the respondents. Holding that, in view of the State Government's clarification, clearance of TET is not necessary for the petitioner, the Court declared that it is not mandatory for the petitioner to clear TET, allowed the writ petition and disposed of it with no order as to costs.

2025:BHC-NAG:369-DB

1/2

942-WP-2815-19.od t

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.2815 OF 2019

Ku. Neeta Amrutlal Shahu, Katol Road, Nagpur

-vs-

State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of School Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors.

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and the Registrar's orders.

Court's or Judge's Orders.

Shri B. G. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner.

Shri H. D. Marathe, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Shri Gopal G. Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.2. Shri Vaibhav N. Patre, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND MRS VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : January 10, 2025

P. C.

In Writ Petition No.4672/2024, this Court vide order dated 4^th

March, 2015 in paragraphs 7 and 8 issued following directions :

“ 7. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the respondents No.3 and 4 to appoint the petitioner on the vacancy which would occur on the retirement of Smt. Vasant Sippi. The petitioner shall be appointed with effect from 1.6.2016 or in the event Smt. Vasanti Sippi opts for voluntary retirement on earlier date, from the date on which she ceases to be in service.

Needless to state that the respondent no.2-Education Officer, Zilla Parishad shall grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner either with effect from 1.6.2016 or in the event she is appointed earlier, from the said date. ”

In this background, the issue as regards mandating the petitioner

to clear Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) is sought to be agitated by the respondents before this Court as the approval was subject to clearance

942-WP-2815-19.od t

2/2

of TET.

Our attention is invited by Shri B. G. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner to the Government Resolution dated 13^th February, 2013 which was subsequently modified vide Corrigendum dated 6^th March 2013 and 20^th August 2013 thereby stating that it is not mandatory to clear TET for the candidates like the petitioner.

The aforesaid submissions are not contested by the counsel appearing for the respondents.

In this backdrop and having regard to above referred Government Resolutions in the form of corrigendum to Government Resolution dated 13^th February 2013 which are produced on record by the petitioner through additional affidavit dated 9^th January 2025 wherein it is brought to our notice that clearance of TET is not necessary for the candidates like the petitioner as reflected in corrigendum dated 6^th March, 2013, we deem it appropriate to allow the petition thereby declaring that it is not mandatory for the petitioner to clear TET having regard to the aforesaid clarification by the State Government.

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. No order as to

costs.

(Mrs Vrushali V. Joshi, J.) (Nitin W. Sambre, J.)

Asmita