Lakshman Madhavrao Jadhav v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
2024:BHC-AUG:7156-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 920 WRIT PETITION NO.3453 OF 2024 Lakshman Madhavrao Jadhav, Age 46 yrs., Occ. Service as Assistant Teacher, Aadhar Card No.241840399818 C/o Shankar Parvati Nagar, Ambajogai Road, Parali, Tq. Parali, Dist. Beed.
... Petitioner ... Versus ...
The State of Maharashtra, Through it's Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
The Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Beed.
Marathwada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Deogiri Mahavidyalaya Parisar, Station Road, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
Through it's President/Secretary.
Shri. Muktanand Primary School, Ranjangaon (Shenpunji), Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad.
Through it's Head Master.
New Primary School Parali Vaijnath,
Tq. Parali, Dist. Beed.
Through it's Head Master.
... Respondents ...
Mr. V.S. Panpatte, Advocate for petitioner Mr. N.S. Tekale, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr. P.D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent No.3 ...
CORAM :
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
DATE :
03rd APRIL, 2024 ORDER :
(PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.) Heard.
The petitioner has challenged the communication issued by respondent No.3 dated 20.02.2024 to respondent No.6, thereby indicating objections in respect of the proposal to include the name of the petitioner in the Online Portal for disbursement of salary i.e. Shalarth Pranali, on the ground that certificate of passing Teachers Eligibility Test examination (TET) as per the Government Resolution dated 13.02.2023 is not annexed. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied on the
decision in Writ Petition No.11121 of 2021 (Dattatray Devidas Sonwale and another vs. The State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary and others) and Writ Petition No.9944 of 2023 (Ankush Kautik Gonge vs. The State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary and another) in which reference has been made to the decision of this Bench in Writ Petition No.4904 of 2020 (Sagar Gopichand Bahire vs. State of Maharashtra and others) dated 11.06.2021, wherein it has been held that if a candidate has not acquired TET qualification prior to 31.03.2019, then such candidate cannot be retained in service and the Government will not be liable to pay the salaries. The said matter is now pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.8300 of 2021 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed status quo to be maintained.
In the case of similarly situated person this Court has taken a stand in view of the aforesaid situation that when the petitioner is working, then he should get his salary and for that purpose his name should be included in the Shalarth Pranali. We adopt the same view and, therefore, we partly allow the petition, thereby quashing the communication dated 20.02.2024, with following directions :
[a] The petitioner would tender an undertaking that he 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 qualification or have cleared the TET after 31.03.2019, or as the case may be, they would abide by the same without raising any cause of action.
[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.
[c] Considering the above, the proposal of the petitioner would be considered for entering his name in the 'Shalarth-ID' on its own merits, save and except, the reason that he is not TET qualified. Needless to state, the proposal would be decided within 30 days after the submissions of the undertaking.
[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.
[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, the petitioner would be entitled for all service benefits like promotions, increments, etc. Writ Petition, therefore, stands disposed of. ( S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) agd