[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Haridas S/O Sawaji Halami vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 23 March, 2026
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2026:BHC-NAG:4634-DB
WP-7347.22-J.odt
1/10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 7347 OF 2022
PETITIONER : Haridas S/o Sawaji Halami, Aged about 47
years, Occu.: Service, R/o Nimgaon, Post-
Bhakrandi, Tah. Dhanora, District-
Gadchiroli.
-Versus-
RESPONDENT : 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its
Secretary, Department of School Education
and Sport, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Director Education (Primary), Central
Building, Dr. Annie Bezant Road, Pune.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Gadchiroli, Tah. & District Gadchiroli.
4. Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad,
Gadchiroli, Tah. & District - Gadchiroli.
5. Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti,
Dhanora, District-Gadchiroli.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. I. G. Meshram, Adv. for the petitioner.
Mr. S.V. Narale, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. A.W. Paunikar, Adv. for the respondent Nos.3 to 5.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR &
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
CLOSED ON : 16th FEBRUARY, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd MARCH, 2026
WP-7347.22-J.odt
2/10
JUDGMENT (Per : Smt. M. S. Jawalkar, J.)
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent and request of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. By this petition, the Petitioner is challenging the impugned
order of termination dated 01.11.2022, passed by the respondent
No.3 - Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli.
4. The petitioner is a permanent resident of District
Gadchiroli, Maharashtra, which is a remote and Naxal-affected area
with dense forests and low literacy rates. The petitioner belongs to
"Gond" Scheduled Tribe, recognized by the Central and State
Governments. The petitioner holds a valid Caste Validity Certificate
issued by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
5. Due to the shortage of trained teachers in remote districts
like Gadchiroli, the Government of Maharashtra issued Government
Resolution dated 26.02.1991, delegating powers to District Collectors
to appoint untrained teachers for primary education. Pursuant to this
policy, the petitioner, having passed S.S.C. Examination in March
WP-7347.22-J.odt
1991, was selected and appointed as an 'Untrained Primary Teacher'
by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Gadchiroli. As per
appointment order dated 20.07.1992, the petitioner joined service on
13.08.1992 in Zilla Parishad Primary School, Nimgaon (Mask). The
petitioner continuously served as an untrained primary teacher from
13.08.1992 until the impugned termination order dated 01.11.2022.
The petitioner received the said termination order on 08.11.2022
through the Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Dhanora,
along with a discharge order dated 03.11.2022.
6. At the time of appointment in 1992, the required
qualification for the post of primary teacher was S.S.C. with D.Ed.,
and the petitioner was appointed in the pay scale as per the IV th Pay
Commission. The appointment order did not mandate acquisition of
any additional qualification beyond S.S.C. Subsequently, educational
qualifications for primary teachers were revised to H.S.C. with D.Ed..
Even though, such enhancement was not mandated for already
appointed teachers, the petitioner voluntarily improved qualification
by passing H.S.C. in February 2020 and completing Diploma in
Education (D.Ed.) through postal course in March 2019.
7. The Government of Maharashtra issued a Government
Resolution dated 09.02.2016, pursuant to the Right of Children to
WP-7347.22-J.odt
Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, requiring certain
untrained teachers to acquire training qualifications within a
prescribed time limit. The petitioner contends that this resolution was
not applicable to him, since his appointment was made in 1992, prior
to the enactment of the said Act. Nevertheless, the petitioner
completed D.Ed. Qualification. The D.Ed. examination was scheduled
to be conducted in February 2019, but due to administrative reasons
by the concerned institution, it was conducted in March 2019, which
was beyond the petitioner's control.
8. Considering the petitioner's satisfactory service record, the
Education Officer (Primary) confirmed the petitioner's services and
granted permanent status, recognizing the petitioner as a permanent
employee since 13.08.1992 under Section 6(5) of the Maharashtra
Zilla Parishad District Services (Entry into Service) Rules, 1967. The
petitioner attended the D.Ed. training program from 12.01.2019 to
23.01.2019 and successfully passed the examination held in March
2019. Subsequently, the petitioner was called for a hearing by the
Education Officer on 14.07.2022 regarding the qualification issue.
Due to heavy rainfall, the hearing was cancelled and the petitioner
was directed to submit a written explanation, which was submitted on
29.07.2022 along with supporting documents. Despite submission of
WP-7347.22-J.odt
explanation and relevant documents, the Chief Executive Officer,
without properly considering the petitioner's case and service status,
passed the impugned termination order dated 01.11.2022, followed
by a discharge order dated 03.11.2022, which was served on the
petitioner on 08.11.2022. The impugned termination and discharge
orders are illegal, arbitrary, biased, unconstitutional, and violative of
the principles of natural justice, especially considering the petitioner's
long and satisfactory service of more than three decades and
subsequent acquisition of the required qualifications.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on
following citations in support of his claim :
(i) Judgment in Writ Petition No.445 of 2025 (Lalitkumar s/o
Dashrath Hardule vs. The State of Maharashtra and others),
(ii) Order in Writ Petition No.6726 of 2024 (Ramchandra s/o
Anandrao Tekam vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) &
(iii) Civil Appeal No.1385 of 2025 (Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust
vs. The State of Maharashtra and others), dated 01.09.2025.
10. Per contra, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that, the
cadre of teachers to which the petitioner belongs explicitly requires
possession of Diploma in Education (D.Ed) and qualification in
Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) which is the minimum statutory
WP-7347.22-J.odt
qualification under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009. Admittedly, the Petitioner has not qualified TET
and acquired D.Ed after the stipulated period.
11. The respondent Nos.3 to 5, in their reply, submitted that the
petitioner has intentionally not filed the entire copy of the
appointment order dated 20.07.1992, which specifically contains a
condition that the Petitioner had to acquire D.Ed qualification within
a period of 5 years from the date of appointment. It is further
contended that, on perusal of the result of D.Ed of the petitioner, it
specifically shows that the petitioner has not fulfilled the criteria of
45% marks in 12th standard and contains the remark as "NC-Not
Certified due to not fulfilling the Eligibility Criteria of 45% marks in
class XII. Certification will be done after due verification". It is further
submitted that the order passed by the respondent No.3 is legal and
no interference is warranted on it.
12. Heard the submissions of both parties at length and
examined the documents and authorities relied upon by their
respective counsel.
13. There is no dispute that the petitioner came to be appointed
on 20.07.1992. There was a Government Resolution dated
WP-7347.22-J.odt
09.02.2016 issued by respondent No.1 in view of the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and granted
opportunity to the untrained teachers to acquire the Diploma in
Education by Postal Course till 28.02.2019. In view of this
Government Resolution dated 09.02.2016, the untrained teachers to
acquire Diploma in Education within a period of 5 years of their date
of appointment or by 28.02.2019. The Institution has conducted their
examination in the month of March 2019, there was no question of
passing D.Ed. Examination by 28.02.2019. In fact, the petitioner's
services were came to be confirmed by order dated 10.05.2021.
14. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on Judgment
of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6726/2024 (supra), wherein in para
4, this Court held as under :
"4. The Petitioner has admittedly appeared for
examination on 15.03.2019, and therefore, though the
result has been declared subsequently in which he has
cleared the examination, the declaration of the result
not being within his domain, the Petitioner cannot be
faulted for the declaration of the result which is
subsequent to the cut-off date. We, therefore, are not
unable to agree with the reason enumerated in the
impugned order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the
Respondent No.2 terminating the services of the
Petitioner, on account of non-acquiring the
qualification before the cut-off date. The same is
therefore quashed and set aside and the Petition is
WP-7347.22-J.odt
allowed with the direction that the Petitioner shall be
reinstated with all consequential benefits within a
period of three weeks from today."
The petitioner's services came to be terminated vide order
dated 01.11.2022 on the ground that he has not acquired the
requisite qualification i.e. D.Ed. before the cut off date 28.02.2019. In
view of the Judgment passed by this Court, it is not within the control
of the petitioner when Institution itself held the examination in the
month of March 2019.
15. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance
in the Judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 445/2025 (supra),
wherein in similar set of facts, this Court set aside the termination
and reinstate to the petitioner.
16. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance
on Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 1385/2025 (supra), wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court held in para 215 and 217 as under :
"215. However, we are mindful of the ground
realities as well as practical challenges. There are in-
service teachers who were recruited much prior to the
advent of the RTE Act and who might have put in
more than two or even three decades of service. They
have been imparting education to their students to the
best of their ability without any serious complaint. It is
not that the students who have been imparted
WP-7347.22-J.odt
education by the non-TET qualified teachers have not
shone in life. To dislodge such teachers from service on
the ground that they have not qualified the TET would
seem to be a bit harsh although we are alive to the
settled legal position that operation of a statute can
never be seen as an evil.
217. Insofar as in-service teachers recruited prior to
enactment of the RTE Act and having more than 5
years to retire on superannuation are concerned, they
shall be under an obligation to qualify the TET within
2 years from date in order to continue in service. If any
of such teachers fail to qualify the TET within the time
that we have allowed, they shall have to quit service."
As such, the Hon'ble Apex Court itself extended period for
acquiring TET examination.
17. Thus, the impugned order dated 01.11.2022 passed by the
Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli is passed against the
Judgments passed by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Moreover, no opportunity was granted to the petitioner. In view
thereof, the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Gadchiroli is required to be quashed and set aside.
Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order :
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 01.11.2022, passed by the
respondent No.3 - Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Gadchiroli is hereby quashed and set aside.
WP-7347.22-J.odt
(iii) The respondent Nos.3 to 5 are hereby directed to reinstate
the petitioner with full back wages, continuity of service
and other benefits to his original post.
18. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to
costs. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J) (SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J)
KHUNTE/KIRTAK
Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 23/03/2026 19:59:26
