Ratio
3. In view of the above, we find that in such cases before us, the following categories emerge from the record:-
(A) Candidates who have passed the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET)/Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) after the cut-off date 31st March, 2019.
(B) Candidates falling in the Category ‘A’, who have been granted approval, but are yet to receive allocation of Shalarth-ID.
(C) Candidates who have not cleared the TET/CTET, were appointed by a Management in an Institution which had no salary grants and such candidates were granted approval to their appointments on no grant basis by the Education Officers.
(D) Candidates who do not have TET/CTET and whose appointments are on no grant basis establishments and who have not been granted approvals by the Education Officers or the Competent Authority
6. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to follow the course set out in the order dated 12th November, 2024 in Stephie Sushant Ransing (Supra), to the extent of Categories ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ recorded in Paragraph No.3, hereinabove. Insofar as the candidates falling in Category ‘D’ set out above, keeping in view the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in St.Ulai High School V/s. Devendraprasad Jagannath Singh, 2007 (1) Mh.L.J. 597, the services of such Employees would not be terminated for lack of approval and they would continue to draw salary from the coffers of the Employer/Management. Needless to state, the conditions set out in the Paragraph No.10 in Dattatry Devidas Sonwale And Another (Supra) and the directions issued by this Court in Paragraph Nos.11, 12, 13 and 14 in the order dated 12th November, 2024 in Stephie Sushant Ransing (Supra), would be applicable to all these Petitioners falling in Categories ‘A’, ‘B’ and
‘C’.
7. While disposing off these Petitions, we are recording the statement of the learned Advocate General that, it is one thing to say that the salaries paid from the salary grants extended by the
Government to the Employees falling in Categories ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’, should not be recovered because they have worked. However, since the Employers have appointed candidates without acquisition of the TET certificate and have received approvals when the candidates were appointed on no grant basis, if such candidates are being paid the salaries to the extent of the proportion of the grants extended by the State Government, the right to recover such amounts from the Management, be left open. We are, therefore, leaving this issue open to be considered in an appropriate case.
8. In view of the above, all these Writ Petitions are disposed off.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
DATE : 25th
NOVEMBER, 2024
Ratio
12. Considering the continuous filing of Petitions by Petitioners who are similarly situated, we deem it appropriate to record that the managements would not appoint teachers who do not
have the TET/CTET qualifications until the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.8300 of 2021 (Priti Ravindra Warghante and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.). The relief being granted vide this order, would be made applicable prospectively.
13. In view of the above, we direct Education Authorities to grant approval to the teachers who have acquired their TET qualifications after the cut-off date and such conditional approvals
would be subject to the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
14. In so far as the candidates who do not have TET certificates as on date, keeping in view the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in St.Ulai High School vs. Devendraprasad
Jagannath Singh, 2007 (1) Mh.L.J. 597, lack of approval would not be a ground for their managements to terminate their services and
such candidates will have to be continued in employment in the light of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (of maintaining status quo). Naturally, their employers/Managements would be obliged to make salary payments to the candidates. In the event these candidates subsequently acquire their TET/CTET certificates, they are at liberty to approach the Education Officer for seeking approvals to their appointments. Such conditional approvals would be subject to the conditions imposed on such candidates in Dattatry Sonwale (supra).
15. In view of the above, in matters where Education Officers have refused approvals on account of obtaining TET certificates after the cut-off date, or have not acquired the TET on the date the proposal for approval was rejected, such impugned order shall stand quashed and set aside, since all these Petitioners have now acquired the said Certificates. Such conditional approvals would be followed by grant of conditional Shalarth I. D.
16. For the sake of clarity, we record that this order would not create any equities in favour of the candidates and since they are bound by the affidavit undertakings to be tendered, this order will
not be cited for gaining further benefits.
17. The managements, in cases where candidates have acquired the TET/CTET certificate after the cut-off date or the date of this order, would tender their proposals for seeking conditional
approval within a period of 30 days,, after the Petitioners tender their affidavit undertakings. Pursuant to such proposals, the Education Officer, would grant the approval within a period of 30 days. After the approvals are granted, the management would submit a further proposal for allotment of Shalarth I. D. as per the procedure, and the Competent Authority shall grant the Shalarth I.
D. within 15 days. 18. Writ Petition Nos. 16423 of 2023, 235 of 2020, 236 of 2020 and Writ Petition No.3866 of 2024, in light of the above directions, stand disposed off.
19. The matters in which the Petitioners have not cleared their TET/CTET even today, bearing Writ Petition Nos. 5439 of 2017, Writ Petition No.5452 of 2017, would be adjourned sine die until the Hon’ble Supreme Court decides the pending issue. However, we grant liberty to the Petitioners to circulate these petitions only if the Petitioners have acquired TET/CTET qualifications in the
meanwhile.
20. In Writ Petition No.4321 of 2023, despite repeated calls and flashing of the Advocate’s name, Mr. Anwar F. Shaikh, on the display board, the matter was not conducted. Hence, adjourned
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
AND
ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
DATE : 12th
NOVEMBER, 2024
Views: 1
Leave a Reply