- Case
- GAURI SADANAND GAIKWAD v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPT. AND ORS (Bombay High Court, 13-03-2025)
- Law
- Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act.
Facts: The petitioner was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak on compassionate grounds after her father's death in 2012. The management sought approval for her appointment as an Assistant Teacher in 2013, but the Education Officer delayed the approval. The petitioner's services were terminated in 2016 to accommodate a surplus teacher, despite her being a compassionate appointee. The management later demanded a Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) certificate from the petitioner, even though she was appointed before the TET requirement was strictly enforced.
Procedural Posture: The petitioner initially approached the School Tribunal, which ruled in her favor. The management then filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by a Single Judge. The management then issued an "Appointment Order" but continued to delay approval. The petitioner filed a contempt petition. This writ petition is filed challenging the insistence on a TET certificate.
Issue: Is the petitioner, who was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak before the strict enforcement of the TET requirement, mandated to produce a TET certificate to be approved as an Assistant Teacher? Can the Education Officer insist on a TET certificate when the government has withdrawn the relevant clause making it applicable to in-service teachers appointed before a certain date?
Holding: No, the petitioner is not mandated to produce a TET certificate. The insistence on the TET certificate by the Education Officer is unwarranted and the impugned order is quashed.
Reasoning: The Court noted that the TET qualification was introduced prospectively and that a prior Government Resolution (G.R.) clause making it applicable to in-service teachers had been withdrawn. The Court relied on previous judgments indicating that the TET qualification should not be applied retrospectively. The Court found the Education Officer's conduct unfair and imposed costs on him for delaying the approval and insisting on the TET certificate. The Court directed the authorities to approve the petitioner's appointment as a Shikshan Sevak with effect from 1.1.2016 and to grant approval to her appointment as an Assistant Teacher with effect from the same date. The court also directed the management to forward the salary bills and the Education Officer to clear the bills within a stipulated time, failing which interest would be levied.
