Bombay High Court
Mohd. Yusuf Nek Naam Urdu Shikshan ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, ... on 29 January, 2025
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
2025:BHC-NAG:1628-DB
1 wp7232.2024..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 7232 OF 2024
1. Mohd. Yusuf Nek Naam
Urdu Shikshan Sanstha,
Narsipur, Tah. Telhara,
Dist. Akola, through its President.
2. Nek Naam Urdu High
School, Panchgavhan,
Tah. Telhara, District Akola,
through its Head Master
3. Aquib Khan s/o Ziaullah Khan,
aged about 26 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o. Khakta, Tah. Telhara,
District Akola ...... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Education
and Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
2. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Akola, Dist. Akola ....RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ram Karode, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. A.M. Kadukar, AGP for respondent Nos.1&2/State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- AVINASH G. GHAROTE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 29.01.2025
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.
2 wp7232.2024..odt
2. The petitioners challenge the communication/order dated
23.10.2024 issued by respondent No.2, Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Akola and seek direction to respondent No.2 to grant
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 petitioner No. 3's
proposal did not contain the documents about passing the TET
examination. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court.
4. Learned Advocate 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 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
3 wp7232.2024..odt
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.
The above conditions are incorporated as it is the
stand of the respondents that petitioner No.3 does not
hold the 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
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.
4 wp7232.2024..odt
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.)
Belkhede
Signed by: Mr. R. S. Belkhede
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 18/02/2025 17:35:45
