SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6750

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA V. GHUGEHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAUTAM A. ANKHAD
SANGEETA RAMCHANDRA SALUNKE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. THE SEC. DEPT OF EDUCATION AND SPORTS AND ORS – Respondent
WP/861/2025



2025:BHC-AS:37939-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Digitally signed by SUNNY S A U N N KU N S Y HRAO A TH N O KU TE SHRAO CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION THOTE Date:

2025.09.11

20:11:12 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 7943 OF 2024 Sagar Dattatray Chorghe, Age : 34 yrs., Presently residing at post Kenjal, Taluka Bhor, Dhanori Road Pune 412205 ...Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Department of Education and Sports, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.

2. The Union of India, Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Through the Central Government Advocate, Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 020.

3. The National Council for Teachers Education, Through the Central Government Advocate, Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 020.

4. The Director of Education, Dr. Annie Besant Marg, Madhyavarti Building, Pune 411 001.

5. The Deputy Director of Education Primary Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur.

6. The Education Officer (Primary)

Satara Zilla Parishad, Satara.

7. The President, Maharashi Karve Stree Shikshan Sanstha, Karve Nagar, Pune 411 052.

8. The Principal, Navin Marathi Shala, Maharshi Karve Road, 379, 410, Madhali Aali, Taluka : Wai, District : Satara. ...Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO. 861 OF 2025 Sangeeta Ramchandra Salunke, Age : 40 years, Presently residing at Swapna Deep Survey No.55/3, Bhairav Nagar, Vishrantwadi Dhanori Road, Pune 411 015 ...Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Department of Education and Sports, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.

2. The Union of India, Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Through the Central Government Advocate, Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 020.

3. The National Council for Teachers Education, Through the Central Government Advocate, Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 020.

4. The Director of Education, Dr. Annie Besant Marg, Madhyavarti Building, Pune 411 001.

5. The Deputy Director of Education Primary Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur.

6. The Education Officer (Primary)

Satara Zilla Parishad, Satara.

7. The Pay and Provident Fund Unit, Pune Zilla Parishad, Pune

8. The President, Maharashi Karve Stree Shikshan Sanstha, Karve Nagar, Pune 411 052

9. The Principal, Navin Marathi Shala, Maharshi Karve Road, 379, 410, Madhali Aali, Taluka : Wai, District : Satara. ...Respondents ****

Mr. Suresh S. Pakale, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Saurabh Pakale i/by Ms. Padmaja Malgaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioners.

Mr. Rui Rodrigues a/w Ms. Naveen Kumari, Ms. Aparna Rajeshwari S., Advocate for Respondent No.2/UOI.

Mr. Sandeep Waghmare, Advocate for Respondent Nos.7 & 8 in WP/7943/2024 & Respondent Nos.8 & 9 in WP/861/2025.

Mr. V.G. Badgujar, AGP for the Respondent/State. Mr. Ashok Misal, Advocate for Respondent No.6.

****

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 4th SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2025 JUDGMENT (PER : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties, in both these matters.

2. In the first Petition, the Petitioner has put forth Prayer Clauses (a) and (b), as under :-

“(a) The impugned Order and directions dated 30th September 2022 rejecting the Petitioner's approval (to the Petitioner's transfer on a sanctioned legal post) and the illegal withholding/stopping of salaries by placing reliance on the Govt. Resolution dated 24th August 2018 is illegal, bad in law and is contrary to the Orders and directions passed by this Court as well as the Apex Court.

(b) The impugned actions proposed are illegal, bad in law and not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. While doing so, the Authority has failed to appreciate that the Petitioner is TET qualified and is therefore, eligible and entitle to continue as a primary teacher.”

3. In the second Petition, the Petitioner has put forth Prayer Clauses (a) and (b), as under :-

“a. this Hon'ble Court be pleased to exercise powers vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top