Disposed¶20

Akanksha Rohidas Nikam v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC8 Jan 2026WP/11007/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TET examination requirement; Government Resolution dated 24 August 2018; assistant teacher appointment; advertisement scope limited to Std IX-X; education officer (secondary) permission silent on teaching standards; rejection of proposal; one-week accommodation to produce documents; no further extension; interim order dated 08-01-2026; High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad; Writ Petition No. 11007 of 2025; Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ.

What did the court decide?

One-time accommodation to place further documents on record (within one week) showing that the petitioner's appointment was for 9th and 10th standard only; matter listed for further consideration on 23rd January 2026 with no further extension of time. ¶20

Akanksha Rohidas Nikam vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who teaches only 9th and 10th standard, was required to have cleared the TET examination under the Government Resolution dated 24th August 2018, the objection underlying rejection of her proposal. +1 more

¶13

Ratio / Principle

No document on record shows that the advertisement in response to which the petitioner was appointed was meant only for appointment as a teacher to teach 9th and 10th standard.

¶14

Key takeaways

The permission granted by the education officer (secondary) and other supporting documents are silent on confinement of the appointment to 9th and 10th standard; the permission was accordingly not sought with a clear picture that the appointment would be for those standards only.ratio¶17
Though not inclined to grant accommodation, the Court, keeping in mind the petitioner's interest, grants one chance to place further documents on record (if available) showing the appointment was for 9th and 10th standard only, to be produced within a period of one week.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim order - Writ Petition (Aurangabad Bench, order dated 08-01-2026). Petitioner, appointed as an assistant teacher, contended that since she teaches only 9th and 10th standard, the Government Resolution dated 24-08-2018 (TET requirement) is not applicable to her; her proposal was nevertheless rejected on that objection. The Court observed that no document on record showed the advertisement in response to which she was appointed was meant only for teaching 9th and 10th standard, and that her undated appointment order and the permission/proposal papers (including the permission granted by the education officer (secondary)) were silent on any such confinement. Though initially not inclined to grant accommodation, the Court, in the petitioner's interest, granted one chance to produce further documents within one week, placed the matter for further consideration on 23-01-2026, and stated the time would not be extended on any count.

¶1

wp-11007.25

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

905 WRIT PETITION NO. 11007 OF 2025

¶6

AKANKSHA ROHIDAS NIKAM VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶8

Mr. Paresh B. Patil (Borse) Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. S.B. Narwade, A.G.P. for Respondent-State.

¶9

CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND

¶10

HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 8^th JANUARY, 2026

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner. He has tried to contend that since the petitioner is teaching 9^th and 10^th standard only, the Government Resolution dated 24^th August 2018 is not applicable to her and therefore, it is not necessary for the petitioner to have cleared TET examination, yet the said objection has been taken and the proposal of the petitioner has been rejected.

¶14

At this stage the petitioner has not produced on record any such document which would show that the advertisement in

¶15

wp-11007.25

¶16

¶17

response to which she was appointed, was meant only for the appointment as teacher to teach 9^th and 10^th standard. Her appointment order states that she has been appointed as an assistant teacher. In fact there is no date on the appointment order. But the subsequent documents which ought to have been in fact considered of prior date of her appointment order i.e. the permission granted by the education officer (secondary), then copy of proceeding, proposal details etc., are also silent on this point. That means the permission was also not sought by giving clear picture that her appointment would be for 9^th and 10^th standard only. Now the learned Advocate for the petitioner seeks accommodation to place further documents on record, if available, to show that the appointment of the petitioner was for 9^th and 10^th standard only. In fact we are not inclined to grant such accommodation. If the petitioner wants to canvas a point then she should produce all the necessary documents along with the petition itself and cannot go on adding the documents when the questions in respect of those documents are asked from the Bench. However, keeping in mind the interest of the petitioner, we are granting one chance. Such documents to be produced within a period of one week.

¶18

wp-11007.25

¶19

¶20

Place the matter for further consideration on 23^rd January 2026. This time for production of documents will not be extended on any count.

¶21

[HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE

¶22

asb/JAN26

Akanksha Rohidas Nikam v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akanksha Rohidas Nikam v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ulhas Balasaheb Nikalje vs the Union of India through the Secretary and Others

Mahavir Infra Plus L. L. P. through Its Partner Harshal Santosh Bhandari vs the State of Maharashtra Thorugh Additional Chief Secretary and Others

Sindhuratnas Svc Mahatmaji English School vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Anisa Begum Mo. Yusuf Qureshi and Another vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Shrenik Nagnathrao Durugkar vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Vyankati Chudaman Pawar and Other vs the Registrar General Money Lending and Comissioner and Others