Bombay High Court
Magasvargiya Sarvodaya Bahuudeshiya ... vs State Of Maha. Thr. Its Sec. Dept. Of ... on 4 March, 2025
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
2025:BHC-NAG:2139-DB
-- 1 -- WP 6620.2024 (J).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 6620 OF 2024
1) Magasvargiya Sarvoday Bahuudeshiya
Shikshan Prashikshan Sanstha, Wardha
bearing PTR No.F-327 (Wardha)
having its registered office at
C/o Arvind Tulsiram Shete Plot No.2,
Milk Scheme Society, G.P.O. Square,
Nagpur - 440001
through its Authorized signatory
2) Nishtai Wankhede Upper Primary .. Petitioners
School, Khamla Nagpur - 440025
through its Headmistress
3) Shri Adarsh Sunil Hatwar
age : 28 years, Occ : Service,
R/o Plot No.32, Telephone Nagar,
Narsala Road, Dighori,
Nagpur - 440034
Versus
1) State of Maharashtra
Through its secretary,
Department of School Education and
Sports, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
.. Respondents
2) The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur
3) The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bernard John, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. S.V.Narale, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Majid Shaikh, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAGE 1 OF 8
-- 2 -- WP 6620.2024 (J).doc
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 04, 2025
JUDGMENT (Per : Abhay J. Mantri J.)
Heard. Rule. Heard finally, with the consent of the
learned counsel appearing for the parties.
(2) The petitioners challenging the decision of respondent
No.2, Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur, communicated vide letter
dated 12/13.09.2024 (annex.P-5), thereby refusing to enter the names
of petitioner no 3, in Shalarth Pranali and to issue Shalarth ID. Also,
they seek direction against respondent No.3, the education officer, to
forward the proposal of petitioner No.3 for issuance of Shalarth ID.
(3) Petitioner No.1 is an Education Society recognized as a
Religious Minority Educational Institution (Buddhist) that runs and
administers Petitioner No.2 School. It is entitled to protection under
Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner No. 3 holds a B.Sc.,
B.Ed. qualification. On 01/11/2022, after following due process of law,
the petitioner was appointed to the post of 'Assistant Teacher' on the
granted basis with petitioner No.2 School. The respondent No.3
PAGE 2 OF 8
-- 3 -- WP 6620.2024 (J).doc
Education Officer granted approval to the appointment of petitioner
No.3 vide approval order dated 16.07.2024.
(4) Thereafter, on 18.07.2024, respondent No.3, Education
Officer, forwarded a proposal to respondent No.2, Deputy Director of
Education, to enter the name of petitioner No.3 in Shalarth Pranali and
to issue a Shalarath ID to him. However, respondent No.2 Deputy
Director, by communication dated 13.09.2024, informed respondent
No.3- Education Officer about the refusal to enter the name of
petitioner No.3 in Shalarth Pranali and to issue a Shalarath ID as
petitioner No. 3 failed to comply with the discrepancies mentioned in
the letter and returned the proposal. The petitioners further submitted
that vide communication dated 24.09.2024, they have complied with
the discrepancies mentioned in the letter dated 13.09.2024. However,
no action has been taken by the Office of respondent No.2 for issuing
Shalarth ID to petitioner No.3. Therefore, the petitioners approached
this Court.
(5) Mr. Bernard, learned counsel for the petitioners,
submitted that the issue involved in this petition is covered by the
decisions of this Court in the following cases :
1. Saudagar Farheen Alim and another vs. State of
Maharashtra and another Writ Petition No.623/2024 decided
on 27/06/2024. (Aurangabad Bench)
PAGE 3 OF 8
-- 4 -- WP 6620.2024 (J).doc
2. The Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and others vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others Writ Petition No.3414/2024, decided
on 02/04/2024. (Aurangabad Bench)
3. The Society of Sisters of St.Joseph's Nagpur through its
Secretary and others vs. The State of Maharashtra Writ
Petition No.6523/2023, decided on 23/02/2024.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, relying upon the
decision in Writ Petition No.623/2024 decided on 27.06.2024,
submitted that the Aurangabad Bench of this Court had directed the
Education Officer to reconsider the proposal of petitioner No. 1 therein
for entering his name in the 'Shalarth Pranali' without insisting on the
TET qualification. He further submits that in Writ Petition
No.6523/2023, this Court has relaxed the condition of TET qualification
subject to filing an Affidavit/Undertaking by the petitioners in this Court
as well as copies to the Education Officer and the Management to the
effect that if the Hon'ble Supreme Court concludes that the TET
qualification is mandatory even to minority institutions and the
petitioners appointment would be deemed to be illegal, the petitioners
would be willing to suffer the consequences.
(6) As against this, Mr. Narale, learned Assistant Government
Pleader, opposes the petitioners' claim on the ground that petitioner
No.3 did not possess the 'TET qualification'. So, the appointment of
petitioner No.3 by petitioner No.1 and approval granted by respondent
No.3 is contrary to the provisions of the Government Resolutions dated
PAGE 4 OF 8
-- 5 -- WP 6620.2024 (J).doc
13.02.2013, 23.08.2013 and 24.08.2018. The Petitioners failed to
comply with the discrepancies pointed out to them. So, the proposal
was rejected and returned to respondent No. 3, and a copy was
supplied to petitioner No.2.
(7) Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits
that the petitioners relied upon the decision in Writ Petition
No.6523/2023 stating that this Court has relaxed TET qualification for
the appointment made in Minority Educational Institution, but in fact,
this Court has directed the petitioners to tender an affidavit
undertaking to the effect that if the Hon'ble Supreme Court concludes
that the TET qualification is mandatory even to minority institutions
and the petitioners' appointment would be deemed to be illegal, the
petitioners would be willing to suffer the consequences. That means
this Court has not relaxed the condition of TET qualification.
(8) To buttress his contentions, though the learned Assistant
Government Pleader relied upon a decision of this Court in Writ Petition
No.4640/2016 decided on 12.12.2017, this Court held that no fault is
found with the G.R. dated 23.08.2013. He further argued that though
the State cannot interfere with the rights of the minority institutions to
administer the institutions, but the State is empowered to provide
minimum eligibility criteria about the qualifications of the staff while
PAGE 5 OF 8
-- 6 -- WP 6620.2024 (J).doc
admitting to the courses. Therefore, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader submitted that petitioners are not entitled to any relief and
urged for the dismissal of the petition. However, he fairly submitted
that the petition could be disposed of in terms of a decision in W.P.
No.6523/2023.
(9) We have appreciated the rival submissions of learned
counsel for the parties and perused the record, impugned order and the
decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties.
(10) At the outset, it appears that there is no dispute that the
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 had appointed petitioner No.3 as 'Assistant
Teacher' by following the prescribed procedure and on clear, vacant,
and permanent post. On 16.07.2024, respondent No.3 Education
Officer granted approval to the appointment of petitioner No.3. As
such, it was obligatory on the part of respondent No.2 to enter the
name of petitioner No.3 in Shalarth Pranali and issue Shalarth I.D. It is
alleged that respondent no.2 completely ignored the order of approval
dated 16.07.2024 issued by respondent No.3.
(11) It is pertinent to note that though petitioner No.1 is a
registered religious (Buddhist) minority educational institution and runs
petitioner No.2 School wherein petitioner No.3 was appointed as
'Assistant Teacher', however, respondent No.2 and 3 refused to enter
PAGE 6 OF 8
-- 7 -- WP 6620.2024 (J).doc
the name of petitioner No.3 in Shalarth Pranali and issue Shalarth ID
on the ground that petitioner No.3 has not cleared the TET
qualification.
(12) It is pertinent to note that the issue involved in the
present matter is covered by the judgment in Writ Petition
No.15228/2023 (The Head Master Khawaja Nasiruddin Marathi
Primary School and Others vs. The State of Maharashtra through its
Secretary and others) decided by this Court at Aurangabad Bench,
which was followed in The Society of Sisters of St.Joseph's Nagpur
(supra), wherein it is held as under:- ;
"2. The issue as to whether the TET qualification would
be mandatory for teachers teaching in minority institutions is
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. In several matters, at the Principal Seat, at
Aurangabad and Nagpur, the Education Officers have been
directed to consider the proposals of the petitioners for approval
or for entering their name in the Sahalrth ID, notwithstanding
that they do not have the TET qualification. A recent order
delivered on 02/11/2023 at the Principal Seat in Writ Petition
No.6894/2023 and 6895/2023 is cited before us. The only
difference is that in those 2 cases, the teachers had approval
and were praying for inclusion in the Shalarth ID/Pranali."
(13) Learned Assistant Government Pleader fairly conceded
this position, though he opposes the petition; however, without
hesitation, he submitted that the petition could be disposed of in terms
of a decision in W.P. No.6523/2023
PAGE 7 OF 8
-- 8 -- WP 6620.2024 (J).doc
(14) In view of the above, the petition is partly allowed. The
impugned communication dated 13.09.2024 issued by respondent
No.2, the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur, is hereby quashed and
set aside.
(15) We direct respondent No.2, the Deputy Director,
Education, Nagpur, to reconsider the proposal of the petitioners without
insisting on the TET qualification. The petitioners shall tender an
affidavit/undertaking in this Court as well as copies to the Education
Officer and the Management, to the effect that if the Hon'ble Supreme
Court concludes that the 'TET qualification' is mandatory even to
minority institutions and the petitioner No.3's appointment would be
deemed to be illegal, the petitioners would be willing to suffer the
consequences. Let such affidavit/undertaking be filed on or before
13/03/2025 in this Court, with the Deputy Director, Education,
Education Officer (Primary) and the Management.
(16) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
[ ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ] [ AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.]
KOLHE
Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe PAGE 8 OF 8
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 04/03/2025 14:41:58
