Bombay High Court
Mohd. Yusuf Nek Naam Urdu Shikshan ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, ... on 22 January, 2025
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
2025:BHC-NAG:733-DB
WP 7225 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.7225/2024
PETITIONER : 1. Mohd. Yusuf Nek Naam Urdu
Shikshan Sanstha, Narsipur,
Tah. Telhara, Distt. Akola,
through its President.
2. Nek Naam Urdu High School,
Panchgavhan, Tah. Telhara, District -
Akola, through its Head Master.
3. Abdul Malik S/o Abdul Razzaque,
Aged about 38 years, Occ: Service,
R/o Panchgavhan, Tah. Telhara,
District - Akola.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary, Education
and Sports Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Akola, Distt. Akola.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Nilesh Tikar, Advocate h/f Mr. R.D. Karode, Advocate for petitioners
Mr. A.M. Kadukar, AGP for respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 22/01/2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties.
WP 7225 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
2. The petitioners challenge the communication/order
dated 23.10.2024 issued by respondent No.2, Education Officer
(Secondary) Zilla Parishad, and seek direction to respondent No.2 to
grant of approval to appoint petitioner No.3 and release his salary.
3. It is claimed that petitioner No.1 is a Minority Education
Society that runs petitioner No.2-School, where petitioner No.3
works as Shikshan Sevak. The School Management forwarded the
proposal for grant of approval to respondent No.2-the Education
Officer, who rejected it on 23.10.2024 on the ground that the
proposal of petitioner No.3 did not contain the documents about
passing the TET examination. Therefore, the petitioners are before
this Court.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Tikar h/f Mr. Karode for the
petitioners vehemently contended that the issue involved in the case
at hand is squarely covered by the judgment in Writ Petition
No.256/2020 [Hazrat Dada Hayat Qualandar Education Society and
others Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through School Education and
Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others, decided on
13/06/2024], which was followed in Writ Petition No.6542/2019
[Ku. Rekha Vishwanath Barduddhe and others Vs. State of
WP 7225 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 and another, decided on 05/07/2024]
and submitted that petitioner No.3 is also entitled to the relief, as
prayed. He has also drawn our attention to paragraphs No.7 and 8
of the order passed in Writ Petition No.256/2020, wherein this
Court has directed to grant approval to the petitioner therein subject
to the final outcome of pending S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and on furnishing undertaking to that effect before the
employer. The relevant paragraphs No. 7 and 8 of the said order,
which reads thus as under :
"7. That being so, we direct the respondents to grant
approval to petitioner No.3, an employee of petitioner Nos.1 and 2
minority institution, subject to the final outcome of the above
referred S.L.P. and other similar matters.
8. The petitioner No.3 shall furnish an undertaking
thereby stating that (a) his appointment and approval shall not
create any absolute right in his favour; (b) he shall not claim any
equity based on it; and (c) if so directed by the Education Officer,
the petitioner No.3 shall reimburse the entire amount of salary on
executing a bond to that effect to the Education Officer stating
that amount paid to petitioner No.3 from public exchequer shall
be redeposited with interest as shall be ordered by the Education
officer.
Above conditions are incorporated as it is the stand of the
respondents that petitioner No.3 does not hold requisite
qualification of passing TET."
5. It is pertinent to note that the learned Assistant
Government Pleader has not disputed the said legal position and
WP 7225 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
propounded that the issue in the case at hand is covered by the
mandate laid down in the above judgment and submitted to pass the
appropriate order.
6. Having considered the reasons stated in the petition,
the mandate laid down in Writ Petition No.256/2020 and the fact that
petitioner No.1 is a Minority Institution, the requisite qualification of
TET does not apply to the teachers working therein. We deem it
appropriate to pass the following order.
7. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of
what has been held in Writ Petition No.256/2020 [Hazrat Dada Hayat
Qualandar Education Society and others Vs. State of Maharashtra,
Through School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai and others, decided on 13/06/2024] in paragraphs No.7
and 8, as referred to above.
8. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to
costs.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
Wadkar
Signed by: S.S. Wadkar (SSW)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 23/01/2025 18:02:05
