Bombay High Court
Shivprasad Shankarrao Aher vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 11 June, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
1 wp 4904.20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4904 of 2020
Sagar Gopichand Bahire .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Mrs. S. D. Tambat-Dhumal, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for the Respondent No. 6.
Shri N. S. Tekale, Advocate for the Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2161 OF 2020
Amol Shivaji Patole .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri S. R. Kolhare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri V. M. Chate, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10 OF 2020
Sachin Abajirao Gunale and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri T. M. Venjane, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri V. S. Valse, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 6
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1339 OF 2020
Anuradha Dnyanoba Pawar
and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 00:32:35 :::
2 wp 4904.20
Shri T. M. Venjane, Advocate for the Petitioners
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1662 OF 2020
Dnyanoba Narsingrao Dawargaye .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Ankush N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the Petitioner.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2985 OF 2020
Vijay Manchakrao Navghare
and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Mrs. S. A. Dhumal (Tambat) and Shri M. U. Deokate ,
Advocates for Petitioners.
Shri A. R. Nirmal, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
Shri N. S. Tekale, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 428 OF 2020
Sachin Yuvraj Mahajan and another .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Mrs. S. A. Dhumal (Tambat) and Shri M. U. Deokate, Advocates
for Petitioners.
Shri A. D. Aghav, Advocate for Respondent No. 4.
Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 488 OF 2020
Shivshankar Rajkumar Bhagyawant
and another .. Petitioners
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 00:32:35 :::
3 wp 4904.20
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Irfan D. Maniyar, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri N. S. Tekale, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 495 OF 2020
Rajkumari Anilrao Kadam .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Irfan D. Maniyar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
Shri N. S. Tekale, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 563 OF 2020
Rahul Ramrao Reddy .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Girish L. Awale, Advocate for the Petitioner.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 618 OF 2020
Manoj s/o. Dnyanoba More
and another .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri T. M. Venjane, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri V. S. Valse, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 651 OF 2020
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 00:32:35 :::
4 wp 4904.20
Ram Anant Chate and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri T. M. Venjane, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri V. S. Valse, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 665 OF 2020
Prashant Manohar Dalve and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Irfan D. Maniyar, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
Shri N. S. Tekale, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 672 OF 2020
Yamuna Bharat Buwa and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
Shri N. S. Tekale, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 679 OF 2020
Chandrakala Sudhakar Yarkalwad
and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Mrs. S. A. Dhumal (Tambat), Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri P. R. Tandale, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
Shri A. D. Aghav, Advocate for Respondent No. 8.
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 00:32:35 :::
5 wp 4904.20
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 743 OF 2020
Seema Rangrao Rudre .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
...
Shri S. R. Kolhare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri V. M. Chate, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
Shri M. M. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 760 OF 2020
Ashwini Pundlikrao Lakhmawad .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri G. K. Kshirsagar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 942 OF 2020
Ranjana Chiliyaji Magar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Vishnu B. Madan, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri S. B. Ghute, Advocate for Respondent No. 4.
Shri L. S. Mahajan, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1108 OF 2020
Uddhav Laxman Ghatol and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Irfan D. Maniyar, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 8.
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 00:32:35 :::
6 wp 4904.20
Shri N. S. Tekale, Advocate for Respondent No. 9.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1123 OF 2020
Mahesh Laxmanrao Tambale
and another .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1124 OF 2020
Tejashri Machhindra Buwa and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri G. D. Jain, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri K. C. Sant, Advocate for Respondent No. 4.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1155 OF 2020
Kavita Chandrakant Todkari .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri S. R. Kolhare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1156 OF 2020
Kavita Suryakant Malkapure .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 00:32:35 :::
7 wp 4904.20
Shri S. R. Kolhare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Vithal M. Chate, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1160 OF 2021
Rukmin Baburao Mugale .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri V. P. Savant, Advocate for the Petitioner.
ShriAvinash Hande, Advocate for Respondents No. 5 and 6.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1222 OF 2020
Dhananjay Prabhakarrao Mahamuni
and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Irfan D.Maniyar, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri Anup R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
Shri N. S. Tekale, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1231 OF 2020
Namdev Datta Modhe and another .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Tukaram M. Venjane, Advocate for Petitioners.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1248 OF 2020
Nagesh Rameshwar Sonawane
and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 00:32:35 :::
8 wp 4904.20
Shri Tukaram M. Venjane, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri S.B. Pulkundwar for Respondent No. 3.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1261 OF 2020
Ajay Nagnathappa Eklare and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Irfan D.Maniyar, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri A.R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
Shri N.S. Tekale Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1415 OF 2020
Rameshwar Ukhardu Wagh and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri S. A. Dhumal (Tambat), Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
Shri Amol S. Gandhi, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1418 OF 2020
Dnyaneshwar Vithalrao Armal
and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Laxman H. Kawale, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri A. A. Khande, Advocate for Respondents No. 5 and 6.
Shri A.R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1444 OF 2020
Abhilash Mohan Sonawane
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 00:32:35 :::
9 wp 4904.20
and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri S. A. Dhumal (Tambat), Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
Shri Amol S. Gandhi, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1464 OF 2020
Vijay Arjunrao Yewale and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Tukarm M. Venjane, Advocate for Petitioners.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1482 OF 2020
Rupaji Khirba Karhale and another .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/by Shri S. R. Sapkal,
Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1538 OF 2020
Satish Anandrao Jadhav and another .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Irfan D.Maniyar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Anup R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
Shri N.S. Tekale, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1544 OF 2020
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 00:32:35 :::
10 wp 4904.20
Asha Govardhan Surshetwar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Manish P. Tripathi, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri P. R. Kadam, Advocate for Respondents No. 5 and 6.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1568 OF 2020
Rameshwar Madanrao Dhopte
and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Nilkanth R. Pawade, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri Anup R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1574 OF 2020
Sangita Marotrao Kadam and another .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Irfan D. Maniyar, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for Respondents No. 3 and 4.
Shri Anup R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
Shri N. S. Tekale, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1665 OF 2020
Rangnath s/o Jagannath Suryawanshi
and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri S.A. Dhumal (Tambat), Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri Anup R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 00:32:35 :::
11 wp 4904.20
Shri Amol S. Gandhi, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1688 OF 2020
Savita Trimbak Ghadge .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri S.R. Kolhare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Vithal M. Chate, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1740 OF 2020
Sandhya Kishanrao Kalyankar
and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Chandrakant A. Jadhav, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri H.U. Dhage, Advocate for Respondents No. 5 and 6.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2008 OF 2020
Surekha Choturam Dhakne .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri S. R. Kolhare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Vithal M. Chate, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2038 OF 2020
Pundlik Shripatrao Sangvikar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Tukaram M. Venjane, Advocate for the Petitioner.
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 00:32:35 :::
12 wp 4904.20
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1745 of 2020
Priti Ravindra Warghante and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for Petitioners.
The Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are served.
Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for the Respondent No. 6.
Shri N. S. Tekale, Advocate for the Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1935 OF 2020
Ajay Mukund Umrajkar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Vithal G. Salgare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Anup R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 4.
Shri Pradeep B. Salunke, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1988 OF 2020
Ramesh Baburao Budhware .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri V. M. Maney and Pankaj P. Deshmukh, Advocates for the
Petitioner.
Shri Anup R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2046 OF 2020
Pankaj Tukaram Bhandare .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 00:32:35 :::
13 wp 4904.20
Shri Tukaram M. Venjane, Advocate for the Petitioner.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2103 OF 2020
Sapna Raghunathrao Deshmukh .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Dhananjay M. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri R. K. Ingole, Advocate for Respondents No. 5 and 6.
Shri Anup R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2119 OF 2020
Suryakant Babanrao Bondare
and another .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
Shri N. S. Tekale, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2121 OF 2020
Arun Prakashrao Rekadage .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Irfan D. Maniyar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri A.R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2126 OF 2020
Jagdish Balaji Mane and another .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 00:32:35 :::
14 wp 4904.20
Shri V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for Respondents No. 4 and 5.
Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
Shri N. S. Tekale, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2155 OF 2020
Santosh Narayan Gadekar
and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Mrs. S. A. Dhumal (Tambat), Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri Anup R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
Shri N. S.Tekale, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2175 OF 2020
Nitin Ramrao Suryawanshi
and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri Anup R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
Shri N. S. Tekale, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
Shri A. L. Kanade, Advocate for Respondent No. 9.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2177 OF 2020
Praful Vitthalrao Suroshe .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Anup R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
Shri N. S. Tekale, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 00:32:35 :::
15 wp 4904.20
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2266 OF 2020
Archana Sudhakar Wanare
and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Mrs. S. A. Dhumal (Tambat), Advocate and
Shri M. G. Deokate, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri Anup R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondents No. 6.
Shri N. S. Tekale, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2300 OF 2020
Bandu Poma Chavan and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Mrs. S. A. Dhumal (Tambat), Advocate and
Shri M. G. Deokate, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri Anup R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondents No. 6.
Shri N. S. Tekale, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2328 OF 2020
Raju Shankarrao Mundkar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri V. D. Patnurkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for Respondents No. 4 & 5.
Shri Anup R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2337 OF 2020
Digambar Ramchandra Balate .. Petitioner
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 00:32:35 :::
16 wp 4904.20
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri V. G. Salgare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Anup R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondents No. 4.
Shri R. R. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent No. 7 and 8.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2340 OF 2020
Datta Devrao Wanole and another .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri T. M. Venjane, Advocate for the Petitioners.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2365 OF 2020
Laxmikant Venkatrao Dabade .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri V. G. Salgare, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Anup R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondents No. 4.
Shri R. R. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent Nos.7 & 8
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2675 OF 2020
Santosh Digambar Khindiwale .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri T. M. Venjane, Advocate for the Petitioner.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3055 OF 2020
Shivprasad Shankarrao Aher .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 00:32:35 :::
17 wp 4904.20
Shri M. P. Tripathi, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri P. B. Gapat, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3335 OF 2020
Ghalappa Shankarappa Mathpati .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri M. P. Tripathi, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Ashutosh Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondents No. 5 & 6
Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3493 OF 2020
Santosh Prabhu Asole .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri T. M. Venjane, Advocate for the Petitioner.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4508 OF 2021
Rupali Subhash Dixit alias
Rupali Abhishek Pande .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4823 OF 2020
Sarika Nagorao Kulkarni .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 00:32:35 :::
18 wp 4904.20
Shri Vishnu B. Madan, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri D. M. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5030 OF 2020
Ramesh Dnyaneshwar Jadhav .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Mayur G. Deokate, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
Shri N. S. Tekale, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5062 OF 2020
Nilesh Mahadev Rajure and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Mrs. S. A. Dhumal (Tambat), Advocate and
Shri Mayur G. Deokate, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
Shri N. S. Tekale, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5705 OF 2020
Sheshrao Janardhan Choudhari
and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/b Shri S. R. Sapkal,
Advocate and Shri A. B.Chormal, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
Shri N. S. Tekale, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 00:32:35 :::
19 wp 4904.20
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5941 OF 2020
Laxman Tatyarao Ghodke .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Vishnu B. Madan, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Y. B. Bolkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6047 OF 2020
Ganesh Panditrao Shinde .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri M. P. Kale, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri R. J. Nirmal, Advocate for Respondent No. 5.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6154 OF 2020
Govind Pundlikrao Ravale .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri S. S. Thombre, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri P. R. Tandale, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.
Shri M. S. Karad, Advocate for Respondents No. 5 and 6.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6435 OF 2020
Ganesh Zipa Kokani .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri B. K. Gaikwad, Advocate for the Petitioner
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 00:32:35 :::
20 wp 4904.20
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6506 OF 2020
Tukaram Sheshrao Garud .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri M. G. Deokate, Advocate and Shri S. D. Tambat Dhumal,
Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri N. S. Tekale, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6716 OF 2020
Suresh Shivaji Marewad and another .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Y. R. Barhate, Advocate for the Petitioners.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6721 OF 2020
Shrikant Kishanrao Shirde .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Yogesh B. Bolkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri S. A. Ambilwade, Advocate for Respondents No. 6 and 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8464 of 2017
D.T.ED/B.ED. Students Association
Through its President S. A. Magar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 00:32:35 :::
21 wp 4904.20
Shri Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri A. G. Talhar, A.S.G. for the Respondent No. 3.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 364 OF 2020
Narayan Nagorao Shinde and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6
Shri N. S. Tekale, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 372 OF 2020
Rameshwar Vithhal Wagh
and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Mrs. S.A.Dhumal (Tambat), Advocate and
Shri M. G. Deokate, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
Shri A. S. Gandhi, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 120 OF 2020
Anil Chhabulal Rathod .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Mrs. S. D. Tambat-Dhumal, Advocate for the Petitioner.
The Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are served.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 139 OF 2020
Smt. Yogita Bhimrao Shisode alias
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 00:32:35 :::
22 wp 4904.20
Smt. Nutan Vijay Nikam and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Mrs. S. A. Dhumal (Tambat), Advocate and
Shri M. G. Deokate, Advocate for Petitioners
Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 157 OF 2020
Prashant Gangadhar Aspatwar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri A. N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri H. V. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
Shri S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate. for Respondent No. 4.
Shri V. P. Kadam, Advocate for Respondents No. 5 and 6.
Shri Anup R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 212 OF 2020
Narhari Balajirao Kolgane .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri A. N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for Respondent No. 4.
Shri V. D. Gunale, Advocate for Respondents No. 5 and 6.
Shri Anup R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 217 OF 2020
Jyoti Jeevanrao Deogaonkar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 00:32:35 :::
23 wp 4904.20
Shri A. N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for Respondent No. 4.
Shri V. D. Gunale, Advocate for Respondents No. 5 and 6.
Shri Anup R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No.7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 348 OF 2020
Sonali Sudhakar Salunke and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Vinod P. Patil, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri A. D. Aghav, Advocate for Respondent No. 5.
Shri A. J. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 349 OF 2020
Namdeo Kundlik Chapke and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Mrs. S. A. Dhumal (Tambat), Advocate and
Shri M. G. Deokate, Advocate for Petitioners .
Shri Anup R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
Shri A. S. Gandhi, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 401 OF 2020
Rohit Gajanan Deshmukh
and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/b Shri S. R. Sapkal,
Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
Shri N. S. Tekale, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
::: Uploaded on - 15/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2021 00:32:35 :::
24 wp 4904.20
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 412 OF 2020
Murlidhar Datta Kayande and another .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Mrs. S. A. Dhumal (Tambat), Advocate and
Shri M. G. Deokate, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri Anup R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7987 OF 2020
Govind Eknathrao Gore .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri M. P. Kale, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri R. J. Nirmal, Advocate for Respondents No. 5 and 6.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2958 OF 2019
Anil Bansidhar Sonwane .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Majit S. Shaikh and Shri Yogesh G. Birajdar, Advocates for
the Petitioner.
The Respondents No. 3 is served.
Shri S. B. Yawalkar, Addl., G. P. and Shri A. R. Kale and Shri K.
N. Lokhande, A.G.P. for Respondents/State in respective writ
petitions.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
CLOSED FOR ORDERS ON : 23.04.2021
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 11.06.2021.
25 wp 4904.20
FINAL ORDER (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-
. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are teachers in
the Zilla Parishad and/or private schools. These petitioners
assail clause 2 of the Government Resolution dated 24 th August,
2018 mandating that the teachers not having acquired Teacher's
Eligibility Test (for short "TET") qualification shall be
discontinued/terminated and the communications issued to them
of discontinuing the services of the petitioners on not having
acquired TET qualification by 31 st March, 2019 and withholding
their salaries.
02. As all these petitioners are similarly situated and they
raise similar ground of challenge, to avoid rigmarole all these
petitions are decided by this common judgment.
03. We have heard Mr. Sapkal, the learned senior advocate,
late Shri Chaukidar, Mr. Panpatte, Mrs. Tambat-Dhumal, Mr.
Kolhare, Mr. Venjane, Mr. Nagargoje, Mr. Maniyar, Mr. Awale,
Mr. Kshirsagar, Mr. Madan, Mr. Jain, Mr. Savant, Mr. Kawale,
Mr. Tripathi, Mr. Jadhav, Mr. Salgare, Mr. Shinde, Mr.
Patnurkar, Mr. Mahesh Deshmukh,, Mr. Mayur Deokate, Mr.
Mahesh P. Kale, Mr. S. S. Thombre, Mr. G. K. Gaikwad, Mr.
Barhate, Mr. Bolkar, Mr. Sachin Deshmukh and Mr. Vinod P.
Patil the learned advocates for petitioners in respective writ
petitions.
04. The substratum of their submissions can be culled out as
26 wp 4904.20
under :
A. The employees appointed prior to 31.03.2015 are exempted
from acquiring TET qualification. The employees appointed
after 31.03.2015 shall acquire TET qualification within four
years. Reference is made to Section 24 of the Right of the
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short
"RTE Act").
B. The Central as well as the State Government were in
confusion of the mandatory nature of acquiring TET
qualification. Reliance is placed by the petitioners on various
Government Resolutions since the year 2012, which are as under
:
a. Government Resolution dated 13.02.2012 TET is made
applicable and same as mandatory.
b. Government Resolution dated 06.03.2013, the word
mandatory from G. R. dated 13.02.2013 is deleted.
c. Government Resolution dated 20.08.2013, the date
31.03.2015 also came to be deleted.
d. Government Resolution dated 23.08.2013 again the same is
said, it is mandatory.
e. G. R. dated 23.06.2017 and in clause 5(5.4), it is stated
that, employees will get five chances to improve the said
qualification.
f. Amendment dated 09.08.2017, it is held that, the act
came into force as on 01.04.2015 and TET certificate has to
27 wp 4904.20
be acquired in four years from 31.03.2015.
g. G. R. dated 24.11.2017 it is stated that from 30.06.2016
candidate has to achieve TET in three chances.
h. G. R. dated 24.08.2018, the G. R. dated 24.11.2017 came
to be superseded and further it is said that, TET certificate
is to be acquired till 30.03.2019.
i. G. R. dated 07.02.2019, the initial G. R. dated 13.02.2013
in regard to TET came to be superseded and for the first
time a qualification is revised and fixed, wherein it is also
said that TET is mandatory.
C. The syllabus came to be fixed for the first time in the year
2019, hence the chances for acquiring TET qualification made
mandatory should be counted from 07.02.2019. From the
declaration of syllabus five chances ought to be granted to the
employees appointed on or after 31.03.2015. The employees
appointed prior to 31.03.2015 are not required to possess TET
qualification.
D. The impugned government resolution is not in consonance
with the Rule 19(2) of the Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Rules (for short "RTE Rules") and Section
23 of the RTE Act. Under Rule 19(2) of the RTE Rules, nine
chances are given to the employees for acquiring TET
qualification and relaxation is granted under Rule 18(4) of the
RTE Rules for further three years. This aspect has not been
considered. Several inconsistent resolutions were brought in
operation. Several cut off dates were prescribed without
28 wp 4904.20
declaring the syllabus and, therefore, the legislature took note of
it and amended RTE Act 2009 in the year 2017. The cut off date
is fixed for acquiring TET qualification. While amending act
retrospective effect is given. The employees appointed prior to
31.03.2015 are to be exempted. Chances of acquiring TET
qualification have to be granted from the amendment made in
the year 2017 and not prior to it.
E. All these petitioners possess the basic qualification as
prescribed by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
(Condition of Service) Regulation Act (for short MEPS Act) and
Rules. Acquiring TET qualification is an additional qualification.
Same has to be obtained during the service period as an in
service employee. The same has to be prospective. All the
employees have achieved the status of permanency and they
have completed eight to nine years of service. Now to terminate
the services on the ground that till 31.03.2019 TET qualification
is not acquired would be inequitable. The petitioners would be
out of employment. They are middle aged and have become over
aged for employment elsewhere. More hardship would be caused
to them. If the amendment is interpreted that chances are to be
given from 2017 for acquiring TET qualification, same would be
equitable and all employees can be accommodated. The
amendment will have to be construed prospectively.
F. According to the petitioners by issuing the impugned
Government Resolution, the respondents have acted against the
Act and Rules. The learned counsel rely on an order of the Apex
29 wp 4904.20
Court in Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 12338 of 2020
dated 20th August, 2020 and submit that, in the said order the
Apex Court allowed the primary teachers to acquire TET
qualification within a period of five years from the date of the
order. They have been granted permission to acquire the TET
qualification upto 2025. The same view is required to be adopted
in the present matters. The notification and the RTE Act would
not be applicable to the teachers teaching IX and X standards.
As such those teachers who are appointed for teaching IX and X
standards would not be required to possess TET qualification.
05. The learned Additional Government Pleaders for the
respondent/State in respective writ petitions, Mr. Nikam, the
learned advocate for the Maharashtra State Examination
Council, Mr. Tekale, Mr. Valse, Mr. Tandale, Mr. M. M. Patil
Beedkar, Mr. Mahajan, Mr. Dambe, Mr. Hande, Mr.
Pulkundwar, Mr. Gandhi, Mr. Kadam, Chate, Mr. Dhage, Mr.
Salunke, Mr. Ingole, Mr. Kande, Mr. Bolkar, Mr. Shinde, Mr.
Karad, Mr. Ambilwade, Mr. Gunale, Mr. Nirmal and Mr. Aghav
the learned counsel for respondents/Zilla Parishad and private
parties have canvassed their submissions.
06. According to respondents Section 23 of the RTE Act
prescribes that a person to be eligible for appointment as a
teacher shall possess such minimum qualification as laid down
by an academic authority authorized by the Central Government
by notification. The Central Government has notified National
Council for Teacher Education (for short NCTE) as an academic
30 wp 4904.20
authority authorized to lay down the minimum qualification for
appointment of teachers. Under notification dated 23rd August,
2010, the NCTE laid down minimum qualification for a person to
be appointed as a teacher in Class I to VIII. One of the essential
qualification is that he should pass TET. The guidelines were
also issued on 11th February, 2011 to that effect. The guidelines
also prescribe the methodology of examination. The TET is
conducted by the Maharashtra State Council of Examination
Pune on 15.12.2013, 14.12.2014, 16.01.2016, 07.06.2016,
22.07.2017, 15.07.2018 and 19.01.2020. It has also conducted
Central Teachers Eligibility Test (for short CTET) examinations
from June 2011 on wards. The exams are conducted on
26.06.2011, 29.01.2012, 18.11.2012, 28.07.2013, 16.02.2014,
21.09.2014, 22.02.2015, 20.09.2015, 21.02.2016, 18.09.2016,
09.12.2018 and 07.07.2019. The teachers could have either
appeared for TET or CTET. According to the learned counsel,
the syllabus was also approved. The allegation of non framing of
syllabus is not true. Since 2013 TET is conducted in Marathi,
Urdu and English languages and the syllabus is also framed.
07. The learned counsel rely on the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court at its Principal seat at Bombay dated
28.01.2020 in Writ Petition No. 747 of 2020 with other connected
writ petitions. The NCTE by notification dated 23.08.2010 and
29.07.2011 declared that, it would be compulsory for primary
teachers teaching (I to VIII standards) to acquire TET
qualification and the same would be minimum educational and
professional qualification. Initially the NCTE provided that the
31 wp 4904.20
requisite eligibility had to be obtained by the concerned primary
teachers before 31.03.2015. The corrigendum dated 06.03.2013
relied by the petitioners was clarifying that existing teachers
appointed before 13.02.2013 were not required to complete TET.
Earlier under Government Resolution dated 30th June, 2016, the
State Government provided for three opportunities to acquire
TET qualification. On 09.08.2017 and 17.10.2017, the RTE Act
was amended and the time period to obtain TET qualification
was provided upto 31.03.2019. Pursuant thereto, the State
Government issued Government Resolutions dated 24.11.2017
and 24.08.2018 clarifying that the concerned teachers should
obtain minimum qualification latest by 30 th June, 2019 and those
who did not obtain the said qualification shall be removed from
services. The TET examinations were conducted as detailed and
in all 69,706 teachers have cleared TET examination in between
2013 - 2018. There are other persons who have cleared Central
TET. The State Government requested the Government of India
by letter dated 06.05.2019 to give one final opportunity to
remaining teachers to acquire minimum qualification. The
Central Government under its reply dated 03.06.2019 declined to
accept the request of the State Government. In view of that,
directions are given to stop the salaries of the teachers who did
not acquire TET qualification within the prescribed period and
also to take steps for termination of their services. The
communications by the State authorities are only sequel to the
RTE Act. The same is to implement the provisions of the RTE
Act. There are more than seventy thousand eligible persons who
have cleared the TET. There are many TET qualified teachers
32 wp 4904.20
in search of employment and the communications cannot be
faulted.
08. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.
2958 of 2019 submits that, the subject of education finds place in
Entry No. 25 in the concurrent list. As per the mandate of
Article 254 of the Constitution of India, the enactment made by
the parliament would prevail. The local government is duty
bound to ensure that the candidates appointed as teachers must
possess the minimum required qualification prescribed by the
NCTE and as mandated by Section 23 of the RTE Act. Each and
every candidate appointed before 23.08.2010 and subsequently
also should acquire TET qualification by 31.03.2019. The
Government Resolutions issued by the State Government
contrary to the provisions of the RTE Act are void and does not
have legal effect. The appointments of teachers after the
commencement of RTE Act and not possessing TET qualification
would be regarded as illegal. There are sufficient number of
eligible candidates possessing TET qualification available. Their
claims were discarded and the candidates not possessing
requisite qualification are appointed. This is an inaction on the
part of the State of Maharashtra permitting recruitment of
ineligible persons. The petition is filed for strict implementation
of Section 23 of the RTE Act. The learned counsel relies on the
judgment of the Apex Court in a case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs.
Anand Kumar Yadav reported in (2018) 13 SCC 560. The Apex Court
held that, no appointment was permissible of the teachers not
possessing minimum qualification after 23.08.2010 i. e. after the
33 wp 4904.20
date of notification by the NCTE. The relaxation may be invoked
for the limited period or in respect of persons already appointed
in terms of application of rules relating to qualifications. The
State be directed to strictly implement the central enactment.
09. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned counsel for respective parties.
10. In all these cases, the petitioners, it appears are appointed
after the notification dated 23rd August, 2010 and the
enforcement of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009.
11. Section 23 (1) of the RTE Act empowers the academic
authority authorized by the Central Government to provide for
the minimum qualification of teacher and who possess the same
shall be eligible for appointment. In contingencies where a state
does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training
in teachers education and teachers possessing minimum
qualification as laid down under Sub Section 1 of Sec. 23 of the
RTE Act are not available in sufficient numbers, power has been
given to the Central Government to relax the minimum
qualification required for appointment as a teacher for such
period not exceeding five years as may be specified in the
notification. First proviso to Sub Section 2 of Section 23 of the
RTE Act mandated that a person not possessing the qualification
laid down under Sub Section 1 of Section 23 of the RTE Act shall
acquire such minimum qualification within a period of five years.
34 wp 4904.20
Second proviso to Sub Section 2 of Section 23 of the RTE Act was
inserted by amending Act 24 of 2017 with retrospective effect
from 01.04.2015. Said second proviso further provided that every
teacher appointed or in position as on 31.03.2015, who does not
possess minimum qualification as laid down under Sub Section 1
of Section 23 of the RTE Act shall acquire such minimum
qualification within a period of four years from the date of
commencement of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education (Amendment) Act, 2017. The amending Act 2017 is
brought with retrospective effect from 01.04.2015. Such teachers
are required to obtain qualification on or before 31.03.2019. Rule
19 of the RTE Rules 2010 requires such teachers to obtain the
minimum qualification as prescribed within a period of nine
years from the commencement of the Act.
12. The Central Government has appointed NCTE as academic
authority within the meaning of Section 23 of the RTE Act vide
notification dated 23rd August, 2010. The NCTE under
notification dated 23rd August, 2010 laid down the minimum
qualification for the person to be eligible for appointment as
teacher in Class I to VIII. It inter alia provided that one of the
essential qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment
as a teacher in any of the schools referred to in Clause (n) of
Section 2 of the RTE Act is that, he /she should pass the teacher's
eligibility test which will be conducted by the appropriate
Government in accordance with guidelines framed by the NCTE.
The NCTE has framed the guidelines.
35 wp 4904.20
13. The notification dated 23.08.2010 of the NCTE providing
minimum qualification reads thus :
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2010
F. No. 61-03/20/2010/NCTE/(N & S).-In exercise of the
powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Right
of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of
2009), and in pursuance of Notification No. S.O. 750(E) :
MANU/HRDT/0013/2010 dated 31st March, 2010 issued by
the Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of
Human Resource Development, Government of India, the
National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) hereby lays
down the following minimum qualifications for a person to be
eligible for appointment as a teacher in class I to VIII in a school
referred to in clause (n) of Section 2 of the Right of Children to
Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, with effect from the
date of this notification:-
1. Minimum Qualifications:-
(i) CLASSES I-V
(a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least
50% marks and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (by
whatever name known)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45%
marks and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (by
whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE
(Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002.
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50%
marks and 4 year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50%
marks and 2 year Diploma in Education (Special Education)
AND
(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Text (TET), to be
conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with
the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.
(ii) Classes VI-VIII
(a) B.A/B.Sc. and 2 year Diploma in Elementary
36 wp 4904.20
Education (by whatever name known)
OR
B.A/B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1 year Bachelor in
Education (B.Ed.)
OR
B.A/B.Sc. with at least 45% marks and 1 year Bachelor in
Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition
Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in
this regard.
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50%
marks and 4 year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50%
marks and 4 year BA/B.Sc. Ed or B.A.Ed./B.Sc. Ed.
OR
B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1 year B.Ed.
(Special Education)
AND
(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Text (TET), to be
conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with
the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.
14. The NCTE under notification dated 11.02.2011 also
specified the structure and the content of TET. It also gave
details of nature and standard of questions while designing and
preparing question papers. The examining body shall take the
following factors into consideration.
Duration of examination : one-and-a-half hours
Structure and Content (All Compulsory)
(i) Child Development and
Pedagogy 30 MCQs 30 Marks
(ii) Language I 30 " 30 "
(iii) Language II 30 " 30 "
(iv) Mathematics 30 " 30 "
(v) Environmental Studies 30 " 30 "
37 wp 4904.20
Nature and standard of questions
While designing and preparing the questions for Paper I,
the examining body shall take the following factors into
consideration :
● The test items on Child Development and Pedagogy will focus on
educational psychology of teaching and learning relevant tot he age
group of 6-11 years. They will focus on understanding the
characteristics and needs of diverse learners, interaction with
learners and the attributes and qualities of a good facilitator of
learning.
● The test items for Language I will focus on the proficiencies related
to the medium of instruction, (as chosen from list of prescribed
language options in the application form).
● The Language II will be from among the prescribed options other
than Language I. A candidate may choose any one language from
the available language options and will be required to specify the
same in the application form. The test items in Language II will
also focus on the elements of Language, communication and
comprehension abilities.
● The test items in Mathematics and Environmental Studies will focus
on the concepts, problem solving abilities and pedagogical
understanding of the subjects. In all these subjects areas, the test
items shall be evenly distributed over different divisions of the
syllabus of that subject prescribed for classes I-V by the appropriate
Government.
● The questions in the tests for Paper I will be based on the topics of
the prescribed syllabus of the State for classes I-V, but their difficulty
standards, as well as linkages, could be upto the secondary stage.
15. Similar guidelines are for Paper II for Class VI to VIII.
38 wp 4904.20
16. In the light of the above, it cannot be said that the syllabus
was not framed by the NCTE so as to enable the teachers to
appear for the TET examination.
17. The opportunities have been extended time and again to
the teachers. The time was extended initially for a period of five
years i. e. up to 2015. In 2017 by adding second proviso to sub
section 2 of Section 23 of the RTE Act, the teachers appointed on
or before 31.03.2015 and not possessing minimum qualification
were given a period of four years from 01 st April, 2015. Going by
the text of Section 23(2) of the RTE Act and its proviso, it is
manifest that, teachers appointed after 31st March, 2015 were
required to possess TET qualification. A person not possessing
TET qualification could not be appointed on and from 01 st April,
2013. Second proviso to Sub Section 2 of Section 23 of the RTE
Act gives liberty to those appointed on or before 31.03.2015 and
not possessing minimum qualification to acquire the same upto
31.03.2019. Even first proviso to sub section 2 of Section 23 of
the RTE Act provides that a teacher who at the commencement
of the Act does not possess the minimum qualification as laid
down under Sub Section (1) shall acquire such minimum
qualification within a period of five years. The RTE Act came
into force in the year 2010. If it mandated to acquire the said
qualification on or before 31.03.2015 and that is further extended
upto 31st March, 2019. The details given by the respondents of
the TET and CTET examinations conducted since the year 2011
leaves no manner of doubt that consistently the examinations
39 wp 4904.20
were conducted. It is the teachers who failed to avail the proper
opportunities. Much opportunities were given to them. It is
either their inability to clear the examinations or total lethargy
in appearing for the examinations and/or taking for granted their
services.
18. The Right to Education Act is a central act. Article 254 of
the Constitution of India provides that, if any provision of a law
made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision
of a law made by Parliament, which Parliament is competent to
enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of
the matters enumerated in the concurrent list, then, subject to
the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament,
whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature
of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall
prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to
the extent of the repugnancy would be void.
19. The RTE Act 2009 is passed by the Parliament. The
numerous Government Resolutions issued since the year 2013 by
the State clarifying certain aspects would be of no consequence.
The State cannot by executive instructions provide whether
provisions of the Central Act are mandatory or otherwise. The
reliance on the corrigendum of the year 2013 to the effect that
obtaining TET is not mandatory would not inure to the benefit of
the petitioners. The G. R. is only an executive instruction. Same
cannot be repugnant to the central enactment. Providing
relaxation in acquiring TET qualification or extending further
40 wp 4904.20
time to acquire TET qualification is prerogative and domain of
the Central Government. The State Government does not
possess any power or authority to grant exemption from
acquiring minimum qualification or extending the time to
acquire minimum qualification as laid down U/Sec. 23 of the RTE
Act. The state at the most upon the contingencies as detailed in
Sub Section 2 of Section 23 of the RTE Act can request the
Central Government for extension and it is for the Central
Government either to accept the request of the State
Government or otherwise. The State Government under clause
(2) of the impugned Government Resolution dated 24.08.2018 is
only enforcing the central enactment.
20. The Central enactment has been upheld by the Apex Court
in a case of Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan Vs. Union of
India and others reported in (2012) 6 SCC 01. Lastly the extension
was sought by the State Government for acquiring TET
qualification, but the same has not been accepted by the Central
Government.
21. The order passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave
Petition (Civil) Diary No. 12338 of 2020 dated 20.08.2020 may
not inure to the benefit of the petitioners. In the said case, the
teachers were working in tribal ashram schools on contractual
basis. They were regularized under the judgment of the High
Court. Said judgment was challenged before the Apex Court.
The Apex Court did not interfere with the judgment of this
Court, however, directed that, those petitioners should acquire
41 wp 4904.20
TET qualification within a period of five years. All these
teachers in the tribal ashram schools were appointed much prior
to 2010 and in the judgment and order of this Court dated
31.10.2018, the services of those teachers were only regularized
who had completed ten years or more. So meaning thereby all
those persons were appointed prior to 2008. It was also in
peculiar facts of the case the regularization was granted to them.
The said judgment would not be of any avail to the petitioners in
the present matters.
22. The right to primary education is recognized as
fundamental right by Article 21(A) of the Constitution of India.
To make the fundamental right to education meaningful the
quality education is a sine qua non and a qualified teacher would
have a significant role in making right to education meaningful.
A quality teacher would improve interest in the students and
motivate the students. He can do so if he is a master in the said
subject and in touch with the latest developments.
23. The Apex Court in a case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Anand
Kumar Yadav (supra) appreciated the observations of the Full
Bench of Allahabad High Court in a case of Anand Kumar Yadav
Vs. Union of India reported in 2015 SCC Online All 3997. The
Apex Court has explained the object and purpose of introducing
TET. The observations are as under :
"112. The object and purpose of introducing the TET is
toensure that a teacher who embarks upon instructing students
of primary and upper primary classes is duly equipped to fulfill
42 wp 4904.20
the needs of the students, understands the relevance of
education for a child at that stage and can contribute to the
well rounded development of the child. Teaching a child is not
merely a matter of providing information. Deeply embedded in
the process of imparting education is sensitivity towards the
psyche of the child, the ability to understand the concerns of a
young student of that age, the motivations which encourage
learning and the pitfalls which have to be avoided. The
emphasis on clearing the TET is to ensure the maintenance of
quality in imparting primary education. These requirements
which have been laid down by NCTE fulfill an important public
purpose by ensuring a complement of trained teachers who
contribute to the learning process of children and enhance their
growth and development. These requirements should not be
viewed merely as norms governing the relationship of a teacher
with the contract of employment. These norms are intended to
fulfill and protect the needs of those who are taught, namely,
young children. India can ignore the concerns of its children
only at the cost of a grave peril to the future of our society. The
effort of the State Government to by-pass well considered
norms which are laid down by NCTE must be disapproved by
the Court. We have done so on the ground that the State
Government lacks the legislative power and competence to do
so. Equally, fundamental is the concern that a relaxation of the
53 norms prescribed by an expert body will result in grave
detriment to the development and growth of our young
children and the provision of quality education to them.
Providing quality education is crucial for students belonging to
every strata of society. Education which is provided in schools
conducted by the Basic Education Board should not be allowed
to degenerate into education of poor quality which it will, if the
norms which are prescribed by an expert body under legislation
enacted by Parliament in the national interest are allowed to be
ignored by the State Government on the basis of parochial or
populist perceptions. Such an attempt is ultra vires the
statutory powers of the State and is arbitrary and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution."
24. In a case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Anand Kumar Yadav
43 wp 4904.20
(supra) the State Government had appointed contractual para
teachers (Shiksa Mitras) in the post of primary teachers on
honorarium. They did not possess statutory qualification for
appointment of teachers prescribed by NCTE. The State
Government issued notification to regularize their service as
teachers in regular pay scale, though do not confirm to the
statutory requirement of qualifications for appointment of
teachers in terms of notification of NCTE dated 23.08.2010. The
Allahabad High Court struck down the notification. The same is
upheld by the Apex Court. The Apex Court held that, proper
qualification as per the NCTE notification dated 23.08.2010 is
mandatory and cannot be waived. The State Government cannot
arrogate to itself the powers of Central Government under
Section 23 of the RTE Act. The State Government granting
exemption from mandatory minimum qualification prescribed by
Central Government under Section 23(2) of the RTE Act is
illegal. The present matters are covered by the judgment of the
Apex Court in a case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Anand Kumar Yadav
(supra).
25. The Division Bench of this Court at its Principal Seat at
Bombay in Writ Petition No. 747 of 2020 decided vide judgment
and order dated 20th January, 2020 also had an occasion to
consider the necessity of possessing TET qualification for the
primary teachers to teach the subjects to children admitted in
standards I to VIII. In the said judgment the Division Bench of
this Court upheld the policy of the Government of the primary
teacher possessing TET qualification.
44 wp 4904.20
26. It is desirable to ensure that quality requirement for the
recruitment of teachers are not diluted at any cost. It is
therefore necessary to ensure that persons recruited as teachers
possess the essential aptitude and ability to meet the challenges
of teachers of primary and upper primary level.
27. The rational for including the TET as a minimum
qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a
teacher is :
(i) It would bring national standards and benchmark of
teachers quality in the recruitment process.
(ii) It would induce teachers education institutions and
students from these institutions to further improve
their performance standards.
(iii) It would sent a positive signal to all the stakeholders
that the Government lays special emphasis on
teachers quality.
28. The primary teachers would be moulding and shaping
minds of young children. Unless the teacher possesses the
aptitude, the necessary knowledge and expertise in the subjects,
he cannot train the young minds. The small children in a
primary school would be for more period in the company of
teachers. Heavy responsibility would lie upon the petitioners to
impart quality education to these young minds. It is with this
laudable object the teachers are required to clear the TET.
45 wp 4904.20
29. The relaxation provision under Section 23(2) of the RTE
Act cannot apply in perpetuity. The qualification provided U/Sec.
23(2) of the RTE Act is statutory qualification. The notification
issued by the NCTE on 23.08.2010 provided for the minimum
statutory qualification and it provided that the person to be
appointed as a teacher should possess TET qualification.
30. These teachers appointed from the date of commencement
of the RTE Act are required to possess the qualification as
prescribed by the NCTE. The appointments made in breach of
Sec. 23(1) of the RTE Act cannot be sustained. The relaxation
given has also expired on 31.03.2019.
31. In the light of the above, it would not be possible to accept
the contention of the petitioners and interfere with the
communications issued.
32. In view of the above, the writ petitions except Writ Petition
No. 2958 of 2019 and Writ Petition No. 8464 of 2017 as such are
dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.
33. In so far as Writ Petition No. 2958 of 2019 and Writ
Petition No. 8464 of 2017 are concerned, in these writ petitions,
the petitioners are seeking implementation of the Government
Resolution dated 20th June, 2014 and implementation of the
provisions of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
46 wp 4904.20
34. We have already dismissed the petitions filed by the
petitioners challenging the adverse communications upon not
possessing the T.E.T. qualification. In view of that, no separate
orders are necessary to be passed in Writ Petition No. 2958 of
2019 and Writ Petition No. 8464 of 2017. Same as such are
disposed of.
[SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
35. At this stage, the learned counsel for petitioners request
for continuation of interim orders.
36. The said request is opposed by the learned Additional
Government Pleader for respondent/State and the learned
counsel for respective respondents.
37. Considering the fact that in these matters interim orders
are in operation since long, we continue the said interim orders
for further period of four (04) weeks from today.
38. Needless to state, on lapse of four (04) weeks period,
interim protection granted by this Court in present matters shall
automatically stand vacated.
[SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
47 wp 4904.20
bsb/June 21
