← Library
Bombay High CourtCA/11084/2023disposed off

Shital Ravasaheb Ruge v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2023-11-03Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Y. G. Khobragade2 pages

11084.23ca (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 932 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11084 OF 2023 IN WP/10916/2023 SHITAL RAVASAHEB RUGE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ....

Mr S. S. Tope, Advocate for Applicant;

Mr V. M. Kagne, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 Mr A. R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No.8 CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE : 3rd November, 2023 PER COURT:

1.

The prayers put forth in the Writ Petition, are quite similar to the prayers put forth in the Civil Application. This Civil Application is disposed off.

2.

The Writ Petition has been transferred to this Court under the orders of the Hon'ble The Chief Justice of this Court. The Petitioner has suffered the order dated 03/08/2022, by which, his Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) examination 2019 result has been cancelled on account of his purported involvement in the TET result scam.

11084.23ca (2) 3.

By an extensive order dated 20/09/2022, delivered at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.9430/2022 and other connected matters, we have protected the services of such Petitioners with the rider that their departmental enquiries and the criminal proceedings/investigation would proceed unhindered and they would not be eligible to appear for the MH-TET examination, until they are absolved from the TET scam.

4.

Issue notice to the Respondents in Writ Petition, returnable on 19.12.2023. The learned A.G.P. waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 5. Shri. Nikam, the learned Advocate waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent No.8. 5.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that, the Petitioner is still in employment and his salary has been stopped. 6.

In the earlier orders passed in several cases, we have protected the similarly situated Petitioners. As such, we direct that the Petitioner's service shall not be terminated by the employer and he should be paid the salary, which was being paid earlier, until further orders.

(Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) sjk