Sunil Popat Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sunil Popat Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order/communication quashed and set aside; petitioner declared entitled to salary and all other service benefits, conditioned on furnishing an affidavit undertaking to be bound by the decision of the Supreme Court, to be furnished before this Court with a copy produced before respondent No. 4 - Education Officer within two (02) weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, an approved Assistant Teacher whose salary was stopped for non-clearance of the TET examination, is entitled to salary and other service benefits while the question of the compulsory nature of the TET qualification under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 is pending before the Supreme Court.

Court's answer

The writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned order/communication is quashed and set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is declared entitled to salary and all other service benefits, subject to the condition that he furnishes an undertaking on affidavit that he would be bound by the decision of the Supreme Court; the undertaking must be furnished before this Court and a copy produced before respondent No. 4 - Education Officer within two (02) weeks.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench (Writ Petition No. 636 of 2025, per Mangesh S. Patil and Prafulla S. Khubalkar, JJ., 12.02.2025): The petitioner, appointed as Assistant Teacher in 2013 with a subsequently approved appointment, challenged the stoppage of his salary for non-clearance of the TET examination. Noting that the compulsory nature of the TET qualification under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 is under challenge before the Supreme Court, which has granted status quo qua a division bench order of this Court holding it mandatory, and that this Court has been protecting employment through undertakings on affidavit, the Court partly allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the impugned order/communication, and declared the petitioner entitled to salary and all other service benefits, subject to his furnishing an affidavit undertaking to be bound by the Supreme Court's decision, to be filed before the Court with a copy produced before respondent No. 4 - Education Officer within two weeks.

933 WP NO. 636 OF 2025 (corrected)

2025:BHC-AUG:4476-DB

(Corrected copy :- corrections have been carried out in view of the speaking to the minutes of the order dated 14.02.2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 636 OF 2025

SUNIL POPAT PAWAR VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Ramesh I. Wakade &

Mr. Azaroddin C. Pathan

AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Ms. P. J. Bharad Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 : Mr. V. V. Gujar Advocate for Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 : Mr. Vasant B. Patil h/f. Mr. D. A. Karnik

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &

PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR , JJ.

DATE : 12.02.2025

PER COURT :

. The petitioner, who was appointed as ‘Assistant Teacher’

in the year 2013 and was getting salary till recent past and his appointment was subsequently approved, is aggrieved by the fact that the salaries have been stopped for non-clearance of the TET examination.

We have heard both the sides.

The issue regarding compulsory nature of the TET

qualification, as laid down in the Right of Children to Free and

1/2

933 WP NO. 636 OF 2025 (corrected)

Compulsory Education Act, 2009, is a subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court in several matters, which has granted status quo in respect of the order of a division bench of this Court holding it to be mandatory. In light of such peculiar circumstances, this Court has been protecting the employment, making the individual to file undertaking on affidavit.

The writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order/communication is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is declared to be entitled to have salary and all other service benefits but subject to the condition that he furnishes an undertaking on affidavit that he would be bound by the decision of the Supreme Court and must furnish it before this Court and produces its copy before respondent No. 4 – Education Officer within two (02) weeks.

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)

jhs/

2/2