Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 869
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
Manoj Gopal Mahale - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 568 of 2025
Decided On : 21-04-2025
Dr.Uday Warunjikar with Mr.Sumit Kate for the Petitioners.
Mr.A.C.Bhadang, AGP for the Respondent, State.
Mr.Aakash Bhopi i/b. Mr.Vijay Killedar for Respondent No.3.
Mr.Rupesh Bobabe for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5
Appointments based on valid qualifications must be protected, even if associated with disqualified results from a scam.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Termination of employment - Petitioners sought to quash termination letters and sought reinstatement with back wages - Court found that Petitioners were appointed based on CTET qualifications, not TET results, which were cancelled due to a scam - Court emphasized that appointments based on valid qualifications should be protected. (Paras 11, 12, 10)
(B) Employment Law - Eligibility criteria for appointment - Court recognized three modes of eligibility: TET, CTET, and Graduation + B.Ed - Those appointed based on valid qualifications retained employment despite TET result cancellations. (Paras 7, 9)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioners were terminated based on their association with a TET result scam, despite being appointed through valid CTET qualifications. The Court noted that their names were not involved in the scam and thus warranted reinstatement.
Findings of Court:
The Writ Petition was partly allowed, directing reinstatement of the Petitioners effective from 2nd May, 2025, with back wages to be calculated and paid within 60 days.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the termination based on TET results and the validity of the Petitioners' appointments based on CTET qualifications.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that appointments based on valid qualifications (CTET) should not be affected by the cancellation of TET results due to a scam, emphasizing the need to protect legitimate appointments.
Result: Writ Petition partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioners have put forth prayer clauses (a) and (b), as under :
“a) This Honourable Court be pleased to call for the record and proceeding of the termination letter dated 14/10/2024 issued by the respondent no. 5 and letter dated 11/10/2024 issued by the respondent no. 1 and after satisfying about the legality, validity and proprieties of the same, be pleased to quash and set aside the same, further direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioners with full backwages from the date of respective appointments as mentioned in the memo of the petition and consequential relief including the outstanding salary with interest on such terms as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
b) This Honourable Court be pleased to call for the record and proceeding of the letter dated 25/02/2024 issued by the respondent no. 2 and letter dated 22/03/2024, 3/04/2024 and 17/05/2024 issued by the respondent no. 3 herein and after satisfying about the legality, validity and proprieties of the same, be pleased to quash and set aside the clause 14 of the letter dated 25/02/2024 issued by the respondent no, 2 and letter dated 22/03/2024, 3/04/2024 and 17/05/2024 issued by the respondent no. 3 by exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950.”
3. We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides and have perused the Petition paper-book.
4. The Petitioners have relied upon an order passed by this Court, at the Nagpur Bench, dated 7th April, 2025 in Writ Petition No. 4280 of 2024 (Shrikrishna S/o Uddhavrao Sonwane & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.).
5. It is undisputed before us, on the basis of the record, that each of these Petitioners have passed their Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) after their respective results were declared on 26th February, 2021 (Manoj Mahale), 3rd March, 2023 (Ratilal Ahire) and 3rd March, 2023 (Vinod Kokani). It is equally undisputed that all these Petitioners were appointed as Shikshan Sevaks initially and as Assistant Teachers, on the basis of qualifying the CTET. These three Petitioners have also cleared their Teacher Eligibility Tests (TETs) prior to acquiring the CTET qualifications, in the 2019 TET examination, which results have been cancelled.
6. An examination result scam rocked the State with regard to the 2019 TET examination. It was noticed that there were certain king pins who had master-minded the exam result scam by enhancing the marks actually scored by 7500 candidates, to a very high figure. For example, a candidate, who had scored 39 marks in the actual answer sheet, finds his score in the result declared digitally, at 81 marks. The result of such 7500 candidates was cancelled by the Competent Authority. All those who had acquired employment on the basis of such TET result and whose examination results and the TET certificates were cancelled, have suffered adverse orders. There are several views taken by this Court at the Principal Seat, the Nagpur Bench and the Aurangabad Bench concluding that those who have qualified on the basis of CTET or Graduation + B.Ed., would be eligible to be appointed in the teaching faculty.
7. In Hina Kausar Mohammad Riyaz v/s. The State of Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition No. 8534 of 2023 & group of cases) decided on 14th September, 2023 at the Aurangabad Bench, it was concluded that there were three modes through which a candidate could be eligible to be selected through the Pavitra Portal selection process. The said three modes were TET, CTET and Graduation + B.Ed. Those candidates who were selected and appointed on the basis of the 2nd or the 3rd eligibility criteria, were retained in employment.
8. In Shrikrishna S/o. Uddhavrao Sonwane (supra), the Nagpur Bench granted the relief of reinstatement on the basis that the names of the Petitioners were not mentioned in the FIR
