Sachin S/O Laxmanrao Pare And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2113 Bom

                                                                            wp.311.17

                                                  1



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

WRIT PETITION NO. 311/2017

1) Sachin Laxmanrao Pare Aged about 30 years, occu: service R/o Ganesh Nagar, Anjangaon, Dist.Amravati.

2)      Ankush s/o Ramdasrao Barobde 
        Aged about 27 years, occu: service 
        R/o Chincholi Tah.Anjangaon 
        Dist. Amravati.

3)      Rajesh  s/o Jagannathrao Mahalle
        Aged about  32 years, occu: service
        R/o Ravi nagar, Daryapur Road,
        Akot, Tah. Akot. Dist.Akola.                             ..PETITIONERS

                                    v e r s u s

1)      State of Maharashtra 
        Through  the Secretary 
        Department of School Education 
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 

2)      Deputy Director of Secondary  Education 
        Amravati Dist. Amravati. 

3)       Education Officer (Primary)
        Zilla Parishad, Amravati. 

4)      Rahul  Vyayam Prasarak Mandal 
        Bhumiputra Colony
        Through its Chairman 
        Shri Jaykumar Abhyankar, Amravati.





                                                                                                              wp.311.17





5)        Matoshree  Jaywantabai Abhyankar 
          Primary Marathi School, 
          Sainagar, Paratwada Dist.Amravati
          Through its headmaster.                                                 ...RESPONDENTS

...........................................................................................................................

Mrs.T.D. Khade, Advocate for the petitioners Miss N.P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents 1 and 2 Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for Respondent no.3 Shri G.G.Mishra, Advocate for Respondent nos. 4 and 5

...........................................................................................................................

                                                     CORAM:    SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK   &
                                                                    MRS . SWAPNA  JOSHI, JJ
                                                                                           . 
                                                     DATED :      2  May, 2017
                                                                    nd

ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Writ petition is heard finally

at the stage of admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the

parties.

By this Writ Petition, the petitioners seek a direction against the

respondent no.3-Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Amravati to grant

approval to the appointment of the petitioners.

The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers in the respondent

no.5-School, run by the respondent no.4-society, in the year 2014. The

proposal for grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioners was sent

by the Management to the Education Officer (Primary). The Education Officer

wp.311.17

(Primary) has, however, refused to grant approval on the ground that the

petitioners had not passed Teacher Eligibility Test ('TET').

Mrs.Khade, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the

respondent no.4-Institution is a minority institution and it would not be

necessary for the minority institution to appoint teachers that have passed TET.

It is stated that the Aurangabad Bench of this Court has, by the order dated

8th May 2015, quashed and set aside a similar order of the Education Officer

(Primary) refusing to grant approval to the appointment of the Assistant

Teachers in minority institution, solely on the ground that the concerned

teachers had not passed the TET. It is submitted that in view of the said

decision, it would be necessary for the Education Officer to grant approval to

the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher.

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the

order dated 8th May 2015 in Writ Petition No.1164/2015, it appears that the

Education Officer could not have refused to grant approval on the ground

that the petitioners had not passed the TET. There is no dispute that the

respondent no.4 is a minority institution that runs the respondent no.5-

School. If that is so, the judgment dated 8th May 2015 in Writ Petition No.

1164/2015 would be clearly applicable to the case in hand and it would be

necessary to quash and set aside the order of the Education Officer (Primary)

rejecting the proposal on the ground that the petitioners had not passed the

wp.311.17

TET.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid and also for the reasons recorded in

the order dated 8th May 2015 in Writ Petition No.1164/2015, the Writ

Petition is allowed. The Education Officer (Primary) is directed to grant

approval to the appointment of the petitioners as Assistant Teacher, if they are

otherwise qualified to hold the post.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.

                         JUDGE                                    JUDGE

sahare