Gauri Sadanand Gaikwad vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary School Education Dept. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Gauri Sadanand Gaikwad vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary School Education Dept. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed and rule made absolute. Impugned order dated 1.11.2023 quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 2 to grant approval as Shikshan Sevak and approval with effect from 1.1.2016 in the pay-scale of Assistant Teacher within 15 days. Costs of Rs. 25,000/- on the Education Officer (Shri Balasaheb Kashinath Rakshe) from his salary account within 30 days, to be recorded in his service book by the CEO, Zilla Parishad. Management to forward Shalarth I.D. proposal within 30 days; Deputy Director to grant it within 7 days. Management to forward retrospective salary bills within 30 days; Education Officer to clear bills within 15 days and arrange payment of arrears within 45 days, failing which interest @ 6% recoverable from the officer responsible for delay.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner, who joined service as Shikshan Sevak on 1.1.2013, is mandated by law to tender a TET Certificate for approval of her appointment. +2 more

Court's answer

The TET qualification introduced by the G.R. dated 13.2.2013 operates prospectively, not retrospectively; Clause 7 thereof (requiring in-service teachers to obtain TET) was deleted by Corrigendum dated 20.8.2013 after the Division Bench (Oka & Patel, JJ.) in Writ Petition No. 5435 of 2013 prima facie held its retrospective application to in-service teachers unjust and illegal. The Petitioner, appointed as Shikshan Sevak on 1.1.2013 with undisputed requisite qualifications, therefore cannot be compelled to produce a TET certificate for approval.

Ratio / Principle

Refusal of approval on the ground of absence of a TET certificate is unsustainable. Respondent No. 2 is directed to issue an order of approval as Shikshan Sevak effective from 1.1.2016 within 15 days, and approval with effect from 1.1.2016 in the pay-scale of an Assistant Teacher (by a second order or a mention in a single order) within the same timeline.

Key takeaways

The G.R. dated 2.9.2024 making the TET condition applicable even to compassionate appointments does not apply to the Petitioner, who was appointed on 1.1.2013; taking cue from the deletion of Clause 7 of the G.R. dated 13.2.2013 pursuant to the order dated 2.8.2013 of the Division Bench, the same analogy avoids retrospective application of the later G.R. Its validity was otherwise not addressed to the Court.ratio¶16 (second)
Costs of Rs. 25,000/- are imposed on the Education Officer, Shri Balasaheb Kashinath Rakshe, personally, to be deposited in this Court from his salary account within 30 days and withdrawn by the Petitioner; the CEO of Zilla Parishad is directed to record the order in his service book.ratio¶16 (first)

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Coram: Ravindra V. Ghuge & Ashwin D. Bhobe, JJ.; judgment per Ghuge, J.) allows a writ petition by a compassionate appointee. The Petitioner, whose father died on 8.10.2012, was appointed as Shikshan Sevak on 1.1.2013 with undisputed requisite qualifications; her approval proposal lay pending from 2013, and she was terminated on 5.10.2016 purportedly to accommodate a surplus teacher. The School Tribunal (Appeal No. 17 of 2018, judgment dated 8.7.2019) ordered reinstatement, confirmed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2550 of 2020 (order dated 22.7.2022); contempt proceedings followed. The Education Officer nevertheless declined approval by order dated 1.11.2023 solely for want of a TET certificate. Held: the TET requirement was introduced by the G.R. dated 13.2.2013 prospectively; Clause 7 thereof (in-service teachers) was deleted by Corrigendum dated 20.8.2013 after the Division Bench (Abhay S. Oka & G.S. Patel, JJ.) in Shri Ramnath Dada Mote v. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 5435 of 2013) prima facie held its retrospective application unjust and illegal; only those appointed after 13.2.2013 were required to furnish TET certificates. The G.R. dated 2.9.2024 (TET for compassionate appointments) is equally inapplicable to a person appointed on 1.1.2013, its validity not having been addressed. Impugned order quashed; approval as Shikshan Sevak and as Assistant Teacher (pay-scale) directed with effect from 1.1.2016 within 15 days; costs of Rs. 25,000/- imposed personally on the Education Officer, to be recorded in his service book; Shalarth I.D. to be granted within fixed timelines; retrospective salary bills to be cleared and arrears paid within 45 days, failing which interest @ 6% is recoverable from the officer responsible for delay. Shailaja Ashokrao Walse v. State of Maharashtra, 1999 (1) Mh. L.J. 291 (qualifications at selection are the mandate of law) acknowledged as a crystallised position; the Petitioner having possessed the requisite qualifications at appointment, it did not aid the Education Officer. Rule made absolute.

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the Petitioner, who joined service as Shikshan Sevak on 1.1.2013, is mandated by law to tender a TET Certificate for approval of her appointment.¶7
The court held
The TET qualification introduced by the G.R. dated 13.2.2013 operates prospectively, not retrospectively; Clause 7 thereof (requiring in-service teachers to obtain TET) was deleted by Corrigendum dated 20.8.2013 after the Division Bench (Oka & Patel, JJ.) in Writ Petition No. 5435 of 2013 prima facie held its retrospective application to in-service teachers unjust and illegal. The Petitioner, appointed as Shikshan Sevak on 1.1.2013 with undisputed requisite qualifications, therefore cannot be compelled to produce a TET certificate for approval.ratio¶13
2.
Whether the G.R. dated 2.9.2024, making the TET condition applicable even to compassionate appointments, applies to the Petitioner who was appointed on 1.1.2013, i.e. prior to that G.R.medium confidence¶16 (second)
The court held
The G.R. dated 2.9.2024 making the TET condition applicable even to compassionate appointments does not apply to the Petitioner, who was appointed on 1.1.2013; taking cue from the deletion of Clause 7 of the G.R. dated 13.2.2013 pursuant to the order dated 2.8.2013 of the Division Bench, the same analogy avoids retrospective application of the later G.R. Its validity was otherwise not addressed to the Court.ratio¶16 (second)
3.
Entitlement of the Petitioner to arrears of salary for the interregnum between termination and reinstatement, the post having remained unfilled and continuity in service having been granted by the School Tribunal and this Court.medium confidence¶18
The court held
Arrears of wages: the Management (100% grant-in-aid) shall forward the Petitioner's salary bills retrospectively (continuity having been granted by the School Tribunal and this Court) within 30 days; the Education Officer shall clear the bills within 15 days and appropriate provision for payment of arrears shall be made within 45 days, failing which interest @ 6% shall be leviable and recoverable from the officer of the Government on account of whom the delay occurs.ratio¶18