Suhas Ravsaheb Ghodke And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 16460 OF 2023 Suhas Ravsaheb Ghodke and Anr.

... Petitioners V/s.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

... Respondents Mr. Sanjeev B. Deore with Suchita J. Pawar for the Petitioners Mr. S.B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent - State CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.

DATE : 30 JANUARY 2024 P.C. :- Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. 2.

The facts pleaded in this Petition are only reflected in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Petition which are as follows :- "3.

Petitioners submits that Petitioners are the Asst. teachers and have been working in Respondent No.5 and 6 school at Solapur since last 09 years approx. The Petitioner No.1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Respondent No.5 school on 25.06.2014 and was granted approval as Assistant Teacher by Respondent No.3 vide letter dated 04.08.2015. Petitioner No.2 was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Respondent No.5 school on 20.06.2014 and was granted approval as Assistant Teacher by Respondent No.3 vide letter dated

04.08.2015. Petitioner No.3 was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Respondent No.5 school on 12.08.2014 and was granted approval as Assistant Teacher by Respondent No.3 vide letter dated 04.08.2015. Petitioner No.4 was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Respondent No.5 school on 27.02.2013 and was granted approval as Assistant Teacher by Respondent No.3 vide letter dated 29.01.2014. Petitioner No.5 was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Respondent No.6 school on 21.06.2013 and was granted approval as Assistant Teacher by Respondent No.3 vide letter dated 29.01.2014.

4.

Petitioners submits that it was vide GR dated 06.02.2023 the Petitioners were placed in 20% grant scale w.e.f. 01.01.2023 accordingly the proposal of the Petitioners was forwarded to the Respondent No.2 for creation of Shalarth ID of the Petitioners. However, the same was rejected by the Respondent No.2 on the ground that the Petitioners have not acquired the TET/ CTET qualification within the stipulated time i.e. 31.03.2019 as prescribed under RTE Act 2009." 3.

The learned Counsel for the parties have placed before us the order passed by the Division Bench (Aurangabad Bench) in Writ Petition No. 11121 of 2023 dated 7 September 2023 wherein the Division Bench has considered identical situation as to whether the Petitioner should be paid salary or not and has passed certain directions. The learned Counsel are ad idem that this direction would apply to the case of the Petitioners as well. 4.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of on same

terms as Writ Petition No. 11121 of 2023.

5.

Hence, the following order :- (a) The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. (b) The Petitioners would tender an undertaking that, they 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.

(c) 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.

(d) Considering the above, the proposal of the Petitioners would be considered for entering their names in the 'Shalarth-ID' on their own merits, save and except, the reason that they are not TET qualified. Needless to state, the proposals would be decided within 30 days after the submissions of the undertakings. (e) 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.

(f) In the event, the candidates like the Petitioners are protected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's conclusions and they are held to be qualified to continue in employment, they would be entitled for all service benefits like promotions, increments, etc. M.M. SATHAYE, J.

NITIN JAMDAR, J.

by JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR Date: 2024.02.02 11:05:38 +0530 JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR