Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

MOHAMMAD MUBASHIRUDDIN SAMIUDDINversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The requirement of passing TET or CTET does not apply to appointments made in minority institutions.

Summary

The petitioner, a teacher appointed on compassionate grounds, challenged the refusal of his appointment by the Education Officer, who cited a 2022 Government Resolution requiring candidates for teacher posts to have passed TET or CTET. The petitioner argued that the requirement should not apply because he is employed in a minority institution. The High Court noted its earlier rulings that the TET/CTET mandate does not extend to appointments in minority institutions. Recognizing that the petitioner’s place of work is indeed a minority institute, the Court directed the Grievance Committee to consider the petitioner’s representation filed on 17 March 2026 in light of the precedent set in Writ Petition No. 10806 of 2024. The Court ordered that the matter be decided expeditiously, within twelve weeks of receipt of the order, and disposed of the writ petition.

Issues considered

  • Whether the Government Resolution requiring TET/CTET qualification for teacher appointments applies to appointments in minority institutions.

Subjects

  • minority institution
  • teacher appointment
  • compassionate appointment
  • TET
  • CTET
  • government resolution
  • writ petition
  • High Court

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:37850-DB


                                                {1}                 wp10347-26.doc
                 drp
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 WRIT PETITION NO.10347 OF 2026

                 Mohammad Mubashiruddin Samiuddin                   PETITIONER

                        VERSUS

                 The State of Maharashtra and Others              RESPONDENTS

                                               .......
                 Mr. Irfan D. Maniyar, Advocate for the Petitioner
                 Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for Respondent - State
                 Mrs. Yogita Thorat, Advocate for Respondent No.2
                 Mr. B. P. Gonare, Advocate for Respondents No.3 and 4
                                               .......

                             [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, &
                                      ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. J.]

                                     DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026

                 ORDER :

                 1.     The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24 th

                 December, 2025 passed by Respondent No.2, Education Officer

                 (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded, thereby refusing approval to

                 the appointment of the Petitioner made on compassionate

                 ground. The approval is rejected on the ground that, as per the

                 Government Resolution dated 11 th October, 2022, issued by the

                 Rural Development Department, for appointment on the post of

                 Teacher, the candidate must have passed TET or CTET.


                 2.     This Court has consistently held that said requirement of
                                {2}                     wp10347-26.doc

passing TET or CTET is not applicable to the appointments made

in the Minority Institutions.


3.    Admittedly, Respondent No.3, where the Petitioner is

working as a Teacher, is a minority Institute. The Petitioner has

made representation dated 17th March, 2026.


4.    The Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the Grievance

Committee to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated

17th March, 2026 in the light of the decision of this Court in Writ

Petition No. 10806 of 2024, expeditiously, in any case within 12

weeks form the date of receipt of copy of this order.



[ ABASAHEB D. SHINDE ]                 [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ]
         JUDGE                                    JUDGE

drp/wp10347-26.doc


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.