Jiwan S/O Hirasing Tekam and Others vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Tribal Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

¶1

3.WP.8521.2025

¶2

2026:BHC-NAG:1677-DB

¶3

1/3

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 8521 OF 2025

¶6

Jiwan S/o. Hirasing Tekam & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

¶8

Mr. S.S. Taram, Advocate for the Petitioners. Ms. S.S. Jachak, Addl. G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 5/State.

¶9

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATE : 02.02.2026

¶10

Heard Mr. S.S. Taram, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶11

The petitioners claim to have worked on teaching and non-teaching posts in the Tribal Development Department.

¶12

In this petition, a prayer is made to quash and set aside the Government Resolution (GR) dated 21/05/2025, whereby respondent No.1 had proposed to fill the ad-hoc posts by outsourcing agencies. Further, consequent prayers regarding regularization of service and payment of minimum wages were also made.

¶13

The issue involved regarding the regularization and permanency has been answered succinctly by this Court at Aurangabad Bench in the judgment dated 19/09/2025 in Writ Petition No. 11349/2025 (Nitin Baliram Gharat and Ors. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and ors.) and other connected petitions. In the said judgment, this Court has dealt with judicial developments and policy taken by the State in detail. The following observations would be relevant for deciding the controversy:-

¶14

3.WP.8521.2025

¶15

2/3

¶16

“12. All such Petitioners, who have not completed 10 years in service, either in the teaching or non-teaching category, would not stand protected. Nevertheless, they would be entitled, along with all others, for parity in wages in the light of order of this Court passed in Interim Application No. 1418 of 2024 in Writ Petition No. 13177 of 2023, on 29th November 2024 (Sandip Ganpat Hadbal & Ors. v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.). ”

¶17

In the aforesaid background, the same analogy is adopted here and the present petition is disposed of as per directions given in para 10 to 14 in the case of Nitin Baliram Gharat (supra), which are reproduced as under:-

¶18

“10. In view of the above, we observe that though, on the one hand, the State Government would carry out a verification exercise as is directed in Madhukar Bhagwanrao Sadgir (supra) and Pandurang Hari Shelke (supra), those teachers who do not have the TET qualification, would not be terminated and would be continued in employment for a further period of 2 years with effect from 1" September, 2025 until 1™ September 2027, to enable them to acquire the TET qualification, failing which, their contractual service would be brought to an end from 2nd September 2027.

¶19

Needless to state, those who acquire the STET or CTET qualification within such period, would then be granted regularization as 'Assistant Teachers' depending on the availability of the permanent vacant posts. If the posts have exhausted, they would be continued until further vacancies arise and would be absorbed in a staggered manner.

¶20

All such Petitioners, who have not completed 10 years in service, either in the teaching or non-teaching category, would not stand protected. Nevertheless, they would be entitled, along with all others, for parity in wages in the light of order of this Court passed in Interim Application No. 1418 of 2024 in Writ Petition No. 13177 of 2023, on 29th November 2024 (Sandip Ganpat Hadbal & Ors. v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.).

¶21

As is held in paragraph no. 12 in Madhukar Bhagwanrao Sadgir (supra), the concerned department has to verify as to which of the Petitioners have completed 10 years of service as

¶22

3.WP.8521.2025

¶23

3/3

¶24

Teachers, were interviewed prior to their appointment and were found qualified and appointed. If this aspect is not found, then a reasoned order has to be passed while rejecting the claim.

¶25

Insofar as those Petitioners, who have completed 10 years in service on contractual basis and do not fall in the Teachers' Category (Non-teaching Staff), they would be considered depending on the availability of permanent vacant posts, in the light of the guidelines set out in Madhukar Bhagwanrao Sadgir (supra) and Pandurang Hari Shelke (supra) and the policy of State Government. If any of the Petitioners is found to be ineligible for whatever reason, as was held in Pandurang Hari Shelke (supra), the Government would pass a reasoned order and the said order would be served upon the concerned Petitioner, who would then be at liberty to assail the said decision before the appropriate forum.”

¶26

In the aforesaid background, respondents are directed to act in terms of para 5 of this order and as passed in the case of Nitin Baliram Gharat (supra). Needless to mention that we expect that the concerned authorities to complete the said exercise within a period of 180 days.

¶27

(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

¶28

Vijaykumar

¶29

Signed by: Mr. Vijay Kumar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 03/02/2026 10:31:28

Jiwan S/O Hirasing Tekam and Others v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Tribal Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jiwan S/O Hirasing Tekam and Others v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Tribal Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Raju Govinda Asutkar and Another vs Western Coalfields Limited (Wcl), the. Chairman and Managing Director, Nagpur and Anr.

Neha W/O Rajnesh Naidu (Joshi) vs Rajnesh S/O Rajendrapal Naidu

Rakesh S/O Anandrao Kutemate and Another vs the Ministry of Defence, Union of India, through Defence Secretary, New Delhi and Others

Ganesh S/O Ramchandra Lade vs the Collector, Akola and Others

Tulshiram Fakruji Bothale vs State of Maha., Thr.Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Dilip Awaghadrao Deshmukh and Ors. vs the Divisional Manager, Forest Development Cor. Ltd., Yavatmal and Ors.