Harmeet Kaur Paramjit Singh Godi vs the State of Maharashtra

Teacher’s Eligibility Test (CTET) on 27^th December, 2019, after the examination was conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi on 8^th December, 2019.

¶18

1 of 8

¶19

SUNNY THOTE

¶20

4-WP-4535-2024-(OS).odt

¶21

The Division Bench of this Court [Coram : S. V. Gangapurwala (as His Lordship then was) and Shrikant D. Kulkarni, JJ.], vide judgment dated 11^th June, 2021 delivered in Writ Petition No.4904/2020 (Sagar Gopichand Bahire Vs. State of Maharashtra and others) and a group of petitions, concluded that, if a candidate does not have the TET qualification prior to 31^st March, 2019 such candidates cannot be retained in service and the Government will not be liable to pay their salaries. Since those Petitioners desired to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court protected the status of the teachers as on date by directing status-quo to be maintained. The matter has travelled to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civ.) No.8300/2021 (Priti Ravindra Warghante and others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and others) and a group of petitions, and the status-quo order has been continued.

¶22

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner points out the order passed by this Court, dated 10^th August, 2023, in Writ Petition No.9944 of 2023. Paragraph Nos.1 to 4 of the said order, read as under :-

¶23

2 of 8

¶24

SUNNY THOTE

¶25

4-WP-4535-2024-(OS).odt

¶26

“1. The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the respondent no.4/Education Officer (Secondary), Aurangabad, refusing to grant permission for including his name in the online portal for disbursement of salary on the ground that he had not passed Teacher Eligibility Test examination (T.E.T.) as per the Government decision dated 13.02.2013.

¶27

2. It is common knowledge that the subject pertaining to the T.E.T. qualification is already sub-judice before the Supreme Court which has directed status-quo to be maintained.

¶28

3. In the light of above, we quash and set aside the impugned order, direct the respondent no.4 to pass order afresh, which shall not be by resorting to the ground which has been mentioned in the impugned communication.

¶29

4. The decision shall be taken as expeditiously as possible and in any case within six weeks. This order shall be subject to the final outcome of the matter before the Supreme Court.”

¶30

5. It is apparent that the judgment of this Court, dated 11^th

¶31

June, 2021 in Sagar Gopichand Bahire (supra), was not brought to the notice of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Status-quo was ordered and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has continued the said order.

¶32

Nevertheless, the predicament before us is, as to how

¶33

far this Petitioner can survive with meager salaries or no salary at

¶34

3 of 8

¶35

SUNNY THOTE

¶36

4-WP-4535-2024-(OS).odt

¶37

all, only on the ground that she is not TET qualified. This Court concluded that TET under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short ‘the 2009 Act’) is mandatory. The Hon’ble Supreme Court would now decide the issue. Until then, all the teachers are protected and the status-quo in their employment is maintained.

¶38

There are cases, wherein the teachers before us contend that the Management did not pay them at all and they are working without salaries. Unless their names are included in the ‘Shalarth Pranali’, they are not entitled for salary through the grants may be available.

¶39

The learned AGP has strenuously opposed this Petition, contending that such petitions are likely to open a pandora’s box. Those teachers, who are not TET qualified, would be approaching this Court for seeking orders for entering their names in the ‘Shalarth Pranali’. They would draw salary scales as are available, through the salary grants extended by the Government, which are available only to those teachers, who have requisite qualification. She raises a dispute of salary grants to the teachers, who do not have

¶40

4 of 8

¶41

SUNNY THOTE

¶42

4-WP-4535-2024-(OS).odt

¶43

requisite qualifications. He reminds us of the judgment delivered by this Court in Sagar Gopichand Bahire (supra), wherein this Court has finally concluded that, the teachers without TET need to be terminated. He further submits that, since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed status-quo to be maintained, it would not mean that, further service benefits can be granted to the teachers, who do not have the TET qualification.

¶44

This is a Court of equity and while passing orders, this Court has to balance the equities. If the interest of the teachers are to be protected by passing a conditional or a qualified order, the interest of the State Government, which extends the salary grants also has to take into account, as the State Government insists that their salary grants should not be utilized for payment of salaries to those teachers, who do not have requisite qualification.

¶45

In the light of the peculiar circumstances as noted above, we find that, it would be appropriate to bind the Petitioner to an undertaking that, she would abide by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and if it is concluded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, such employees cannot be continued in employment,

¶46

5 of 8

¶47

SUNNY THOTE

¶48

4-WP-4535-2024-(OS).odt

¶49

they would suffer the consequences. By filing an affidavit undertaking, the equities would be balanced while granting them the conditional ‘Shalarth-ID’.

¶50

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned communication dated 29^th September, 2020, is quashed and set aside, with the following directions :-

¶51

(a) The Petitioner would tender an affidavit undertaking that, she 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/CTET qualification or have cleared the CTET/TET after 31^st March, 2019, or as the case may be, they would abide by the same without raising any cause of action.

¶52

(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.

¶53

(c) Considering the above, the proposal of the Petitioner as Assistant Teacher would be accepted for granting conditional Approval in the light of the TET/CTET qualification acquired

¶54

6 of 8

¶55

SUNNY THOTE

¶56

4-WP-4535-2024-(OS).odt

¶57

after the cut off date and in view of the undertaking to be filed. Thereafter, the pending proposal seeking Shalarth ID would be dealt with and in view of the affidavit undertaking, the Shalarth ID would be allocated. Let this exercise be completed within a period of 45 days from today.

¶58

(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 duties.

¶59

(e) In the event, the candidates like the Petitioner 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 service benefits like promotions, increments, etc.

¶60

Since we find that the inflow of similar cases is unabated and is compelling litigants to approach this Court, we record that the Respondent Corporation shall ensure that if there are identically placed employees as like the Petitioner before us, the Corporation should take a uniform stand in the light of the orders of

¶61

7 of 8

¶62

SUNNY THOTE

¶63

4-WP-4535-2024-(OS).odt

¶64

this Court passed in matters where litigants have approached the Court, to all such teachers, who are similarly placed and they should be treated similarly so as to avoid further filing of cases.

¶65

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

¶66

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶67

8 of 8

¶68

SUNNY THOTE

Harmeet Kaur Paramjit Singh Godi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harmeet Kaur Paramjit Singh Godi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anil P Bodke vs Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer, Mumbai Port Authority

Kantilal S/O Chandrakant Khade Patil and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtera and Anr.

Dhondappa Kundlik Sakhare vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Dept. of Education and Ors.

Reshu Singh vs Union of India

Anil P Bodke vs Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer, Mumbai Port Authority

Prasad Vinayak Patil vs State of Maharashtra Throu. Chief Sec. Ministry of Transport (Msrtc) and Anr. )