Bombay High Court
Madan Sawairam Ade vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 12 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:21805-DB
wp-3065-2020.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION No.3065 OF 2020
Madan s/o Sawairam Ade
Age: 49 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Jay Durga Adivasi Ashram School,
Sakhartala Road, Jintoor,
Tq. Jintoor, Dist. Parbhani. ..Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
(Through its secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32)
2. The Commissioner,
Tribal Development, Nashik.
3. The Additional Commissioner,
Tribal Development, Amravati.
4. The Project Officer,
Integrated Tribal Development Project,
Kinwat, Dist. Nanded.
5. The Project Officer,
Integrated Tribal Development Project,
Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli. ..Respondents
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Dhakne
AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR &
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : JULY 04, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : AUGUST 12, 2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with consent of parties.
wp-3065-2020.odt
2. The petitioner impugns order dated 04.01.2020 passed
by Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Amravati -
respondent no.3 thereby refusing to grant pay scale of trained primary
teacher to petitioner from 19.12.1997 and seeks further directions to
treat him as trained primary teacher since 19.12.1997 and grant him
pay scale of trained primary teacher in D.Ed scale from 19.12.1997 till
date 04.07.2003 i.e. date of acquisition of D.Ed qualification and
approval as trained primary teacher.
3. The petitioner contends that he was appointed as
Assistant Teacher on 01.01.1997 against vacant and sanctioned post
in Jay Durga Adivasi Ashram School, which is aided school. On
19.12.1997, petitioner acquired B.P.Ed qualification. However,
respondent no.4/Project Officer approved his services as untrained
teacher on the ground that petitioner does not possess D.Ed
qualification which cannot be treated equivalent to B.P.Ed. On
01.06.2000, government resolution is passed that B.Ed or B.P.Ed with
physical education in bifocal course is a qualification for consideration
for graduate teacher. On 04.07.2003, petitioner acquired D.Ed
qualification while in service. Since then, his services are approved as
trained primary teacher.
4. On 11.11.2011, Government of Maharashtra issued
resolution adopting policy that graduate teachers appointed in
primary school with B.Ed are entitled to be treated as trained teachers
wp-3065-2020.odt
in B.Ed scale from the date of initial appointments (if within 25%
quota) or D.Ed scale (if not within 25% quota). The Project Officer,
Integrated Tribal Development Department has granted pay scale of
trained primary teachers who were possessing B.Ed/B.P.Ed
qualifications. Thereafter, continuously similar benefits are given to
the teachers engaged as primary teachers holding B.Ed or B.P.Ed
qualifications. On 02.08.2018, respondent no.3 granted higher pay
scale to petitioner on completion of 12 years of service in pay scale of
trained primary teacher w.e.f. 04.07.2003. On 23.07.2018,
government resolutions have been issued laying down that graduate
teachers appointed in primary school having B.Ed qualification are
entitled to be treated as trained teachers in B.Ed scale (if within 25%
quota) or D.Ed scale (if not within 25% quota) from the date of initial
appointments. In pursuance to aforesaid developments, a proposal
for treating petitioner as trained teacher and granting pay scale of
trained primary teacher w.e.f. 19.12.1997 was moved through
respondent no.5 to respondent no.3. However, same has been
rejected by impugned order dated 04.01.2020. Hence, this petition.
5. Mr. Vijay Dhakne, learned advocate appearing for
petitioner submits that impugned order is erroneous and
discriminatory. He would submit that the issue raised in the petition
is no more res integra. The petitioner ought to have been considered
as trained teacher on the basis of B.P.Ed qualification w.e.f.
wp-3065-2020.odt
19.12.1997 and accordingly, approval ought to have been granted to
his appointment as trained teacher. However, same has been refused
to him on the ground that he was not possessing D.Ed qualification
and it is only from the date when petitioner acquired D.Ed
qualification, the approval has been granted to him as trained primary
teacher. Mr. Dhakne submits that similarly situated teachers are
already granted benefit of this pay scale of trained teachers, although
they were possessing B.P.Ed qualification. He would submit that in
view of government resolution, adopting policy that graduate teachers
appointed in primary schools having B.Ed qualification are entitled to
be treated as trained teachers in B.Ed scale (if within 25% quota) or
D.Ed scale (if not within 25% quota) from the date of initial
appointments, has been implemented throughout Maharashtra and
Project Officers of Integrated Tribal Development Department have
granted pay scale of trained teachers to similarly placed employees
possessing B.Ed/B.P.Ed qualification.
6. Mr. Dhakne would rely upon various orders passed by Co-
ordinate Division Benches of this Court. He invites attention of this
Court to judgment in the case of Ramrao Jaimal Bacchav and Others
Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2013 (2) Mh.L.J.
370, wherein this Court took a view that primary teachers working in
Ashram School, having classes from I to VIII standards, if appointed as
Assistant Teachers with qualification of B.A. B.P.Ed, they are entitled
wp-3065-2020.odt
for scale of pay prescribed for trained teachers. Mr. Dhakne would
further invite attention of this Court to order dated 04.02.2016 passed
in Writ Petition No.6355 of 2014 in the matter of Ganesh Pundlikrao
Kawarkhe and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others to
contend that even Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of State of
Maharashtra and Others Vs. Tukaram Trimbak Choudhary and Others
reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1321 has approved similar decision.
7. Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya, learned AGP endeavours to rely upon
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Devesh Sharma Vs.
Union of India and Others reported in (2023) 18 SCC 339 to contend
that now it has been settled that B.Ed qualification cannot be
considered appropriate for teachers of primary schools and even
decision of Central Government to include B.Ed as qualification being
higher qualification was held to be incorrect. He would therefore,
urge that petitioner who possessed qualification of B.P.Ed cannot be
treated as trained teacher for primary school.
8. Having considered submissions advanced and consistent
decisions rendered by Division Benches of this Court, it is clear that in
light of decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State
of Maharashtra Vs. Tukaram Trimbak Choudhary (supra) as well as
scheme of Government Resolution dated 11.11.2011, petitioner
would be entitled to pay scale of trained primary teacher from the
date acquisition of B.P.Ed qualification. It cannot be disputed that if
wp-3065-2020.odt
primary schools are having V to VII standards attached, the teachers
possessing B.A., B.Ed qualification are to be considered as trained
primary teachers, the Division Bench of this Court in case of Ganesh
Kawarkhe (supra) in similar facts like present case has observed in
para 11 and 12 as under :
"11) We reiterate that, the facts involved in the present case
are similar to the facts in the cases cited supra, and as such, the
decisions rendered in the aforesaid cases would squarely apply
to the facts of the present case. Moreover, the petitioners have
also placed on record the Government Resolution dated
11.11.2011, in para (B) of which it has been prescribed that
teachers holding trained graduate qualification are entitled to be
paid trained teacher's (D.Ed.) pay scale (Rs. 5200 to Rs. 20200
+ Grade pay Rs.2800). It is also recorded in the said
Government Resolution that such of the teachers are entitled to
be paid trained primary teacher's pay scale from the date of their
appointment.
12) In view of the fact that, the Division Bench of this Court
has held the petitioner in writ petition No.6096/2010, entitled to
the trained teacher's (D.Ed.) pay scale from the date of his
appointment, who was holding the qualification as B.A., B.P.Ed.
and was working under the Tribal Development Department,
both the objections raised by the respondents; first that at the
relevant time the petitioners were holding the qualification as
B.P.Ed. and not B.Ed., and the other that Government Resolution
dated 11.11.2011 has not been made applicable to the Tribal
Development Department, would not sustain. Moreover, the
petitioners have also placed on record the order dated
17.03.2011 passed by respondent No.3, whereby the trained
teacher's pay scale has been made applicable to the primary
teachers who are working under the Tribal Development
Department and who were holding only B.A., B.P.Ed.
qualification on the date of their appointment."
9. We need not deviate from aforesaid preposition of law.
Since this Court has taken consistent view granting benefit of pay
scale of trained teachers to the teachers holding B.Ed or B.P.Ed
wp-3065-2020.odt
qualification and appointed at primary schools. Even the policy of
government under its resolution of 2011 is not yet modified.
Similarly situated teachers like petitioner are already conferred with
benefit of pay scale for trained teachers during the past. Therefore, as
long as the State Government did not substitute its policy laid down
under Government Resolution dated 11.11.2011 and 23.07.2018,
petitioner cannot be deprived of benefit which is bestowed on
similarly situated teachers. Hence, we allow writ petition in terms of
prayer clauses (B), (C) and (D).
10. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) (S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)
Mujaheed//
