Bombay High Court
SAVITA TRIMBAK GHADGEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- RULE ABSOLUTE
Holding
The Court upheld the cancellation of the TET results but set aside the permanent debarment order for violating natural justice.
Summary
The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, dealt with a massive group of writ petitions challenging the cancellation of Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) 2018 and 2019 results and the permanent debarment of about 7,880 candidates for alleged mark‑sheet tampering. The Court examined the statutory powers under the Maharashtra State Council of Examination Act, 1998 and the 2010 Regulations, finding that the Commissioner of the Council had authority to cancel certificates when fraud was discovered. It held that the evidence, including police FIRs and expert committee reports, sufficiently proved large‑scale malpractice, justifying the cancellation of results. However, the Court quashed the order of permanent debarment because the respondents failed to afford the petitioners a hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. The Court set aside the debarment, allowed the State to initiate fresh penalty proceedings with due process, and dismissed specific petitions for suppressing material facts. All remaining petitions were disposed of.
Issues considered
- The validity of the cancellation of TET 2018 and 2019 results on the ground of alleged mark‑sheet tampering.
- Whether the State and the Maharashtra State Council of Examination had the jurisdiction to permanently debar candidates without complying with the principles of natural justice.
- Whether the procedural requirements under the 2010 Regulations and the 1998 Act were complied with in imposing the penalty.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977
- Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices at University, Board and Other Specified Examination Act, 1982 — s. 7, 8
- Maharashtra State Council of Examination Act, 1998 — s. 14, 18, 23(1)(f), 23(1)(p), 23(1)(t), 26, 2(b), 2(c), 2(n), 3, 35, 37, 4, 5(2)
- Maharashtra State Council of Examination Regulations, 2010 — s. Regulation 11(2)(i), Regulation 13, Regulation 4(1), Regulation 4(1)(b), Regulation 8(2)(t)
- Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
Subjects
- Teacher Eligibility Test
- exam malpractice
- natural justice
- cancellation of results
- permanent debarment
- administrative law
- due process
- education law
- public interest
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:45339-DB
TET (GROUP).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
201 WRIT PETITION NO. 9430 OF 2022
1. Jyoti Uttamrao Shinde,
Age : 32 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: Jain Gali, Ambejogai, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
2. Parmeshwar s/o Baburao Rathod,
Age : 34 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: L.I.C. Colony, Ambejogai, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
3. Savita Sundarrao Pawar,
Age : 33 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: Jadid Javal Post Haraki Limgaon,
Majalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Beed.
4. Pranita Prakashrao Kulkarni,
Age : 39 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: Power House Chya Pathimage,
Sanmitra Colony, Majalgaon,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
5. Pooja Bhaskar Maske,
Age : 29 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: Vishal Niwas, Anna Bhau Sathe
Nagar, Mandwa Road, Ambejogai,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
6. Kedar s/o Dayasagar Joshi,
Age : 35 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: Behind Govt. Rest House,
Annapurna Niwas Road, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
7. Dhanajay s/o Devidas Ingole,
Age : 31 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: Samnapur, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.
8. Supriya Popat Kamble,
Age : 32 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: Navgan College Road,
Page No.1
TET (GROUP).doc
Madhur Niwas, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
9. Saraswati Narayan Giri,
Age : 33 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: Mauli Niwas, Near Ambedkar School,
Pangari Road, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.
10. Prashant s/o Dattatraya Kulkarni,
Age : 33 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: R. H. No.1, Mathoshri Niwas,
Renuka Resident Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
11. Meena Bhimrao Tike,
Age : 39 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: Mu. Po. Shidod, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
12. Urmila Avadhutrao Wade,
Age : 43 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: Mali Galli, Georai Road, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
13. Muktabai Narhari Soge,
Age : 30 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: Upli, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.
14. Shamika Bansidhar Ranjwan,
Age : 43 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: Zanda Chowk, Patil Galli, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
15. Santosh s/o Kishan Aade,
Age : 31 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: Mu. Nandgaon, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed. ...Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through it’s Secretary,
Education and Sport Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.
Page No.2
TET (GROUP).doc
2. The Commissioner of Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune,
Central Building, First Floor,
Dr. Annie Besant Road, Agarkar
Nagar, Pune, Tq. & Dist. Pune
Maharashtra – 411 001.
3. The Chairman,
The Maharashtra State Council
of Examination, Pune, 17,
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road,
Camp, Pune, Tq. & Dist. Pune
Maharashtra – 411 001.
4. The Commissioner,
The Maharashtra State Council
of Education, Pune, 17,
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road,
Camp, Pune, Tq. & Dist. Pune
Maharashtra – 411 001.
5. The Director of Education,
Directorate of Primary Education,
Maharashtra State, Dr. Anie Bezant Road,
Central Building Pune – 411 001.
6. The Deputy Director of Education,
Aurangabad, Region Aurangabad,
Misa Compound, Bhadkal Gate Cir,.
Naralibag, Aurangabad,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
7. The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Near Shivaji Chowk,
Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.
8. The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Near Shivaji Chowk,
Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.
9. The Superintendent,
Pay and P. F. Unit, (Secondary),
Opposite SP Office, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
Page No.3
TET (GROUP).doc
10. The Superintendent,
Pay and P. F. Unit, (Primary),
Opposite SP Office, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed. ...Respondents
AND
202 WRIT PETITION NO. 9461 OF 2022
Syed Aaqib Ali Amanat Ali And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
203 WRIT PETITION NO. 9466 OF 2022
Shabana Abdul Salim Choudhary
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
204 WRIT PETITION NO. 9467 OF 2022
Anwari Begum Mukhtar Ahmad Syed
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
205 WRIT PETITION NO. 9468 OF 2022
Vikas Shivaji Satpute
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
206 WRIT PETITION NO. 9469 OF 2022
Purushottam Bharatsing Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
207 WRIT PETITION NO. 9470 OF 2022
Shital Balkrushna Kadus And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
Page No.4
TET (GROUP).doc
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16170 OF 2022
IN WP/9470/2022
Shital Balkrushna Kadus And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Other
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16169 OF 2022
IN WP/9470/2022
Shital Balkrushna Kadus And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Other
AND
208 WRIT PETITION NO. 9472 OF 2022
Rohit Rajkumar Kulkarni And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
209 WRIT PETITION NO. 9473 OF 2022
Ravindra Mangalu Bharude
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
210 WRIT PETITION NO. 9476 OF 2022
Akshay Sahebrao Lokhande
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
211 WRIT PETITION NO. 9481 OF 2022
Pushpa Pandurang Murmure
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
212 WRIT PETITION NO. 9482 OF 2022
Seema Pandurang Lohate
Page No.5
TET (GROUP).doc
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
213 WRIT PETITION NO. 9485 OF 2022
Rajendra Babulal Pawar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
214 WRIT PETITION NO. 9489 OF 2022
Gaurav Pravin Badgujar And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
215 WRIT PETITION NO. 9492 OF 2022
Tushar Shantaram Borse
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
216 WRIT PETITION NO. 9493 OF 2022
Varsharani Sambhaji Nirde
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
217 WRIT PETITION NO. 9495 OF 2022
Seema Rangrao Rudre
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
218 WRIT PETITION NO. 9498 OF 2022
Bhushan Sukadeo Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
Page No.6
TET (GROUP).doc
219 WRIT PETITION NO. 9499 OF 2022
Abdul Salam Mukhtar And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
220 WRIT PETITION NO. 9500 OF 2022
Mohammed Shoaib Mohammed Jameel And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
221 WRIT PETITION NO. 9501 OF 2022
Dinesh Suresh Mahajan And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
222 WRIT PETITION NO. 9503 OF 2022
Bhushan Vhansing Pawar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
223 WRIT PETITION NO. 9504 OF 2022
Vinod Sahebrao Chaudhari
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
224 WRIT PETITION NO. 9507 OF 2022
Omar Farooq Abdul Rashid
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary School Education
And Others
AND
225 WRIT PETITION NO. 9508 OF 2022
Shaikh Zeeshan Hamed
VERSUS
Page No.7
TET (GROUP).doc
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Principal Secretary And
Others
AND
226 WRIT PETITION NO. 9511 OF 2022
Pooja Pramod Bhole
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
AND
227 WRIT PETITION NO. 9513 OF 2022
Arvind Gangadhar Kale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
228 WRIT PETITION NO. 9514 OF 2022
Sapna Raghunathrao Deshmukh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
229 WRIT PETITION NO. 9516 OF 2022
Sangita Maroti Gitte
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
230 WRIT PETITION NO. 9517 OF 2022
Shaikh Sameer Shaikh Azimoddin And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
231 WRIT PETITION NO. 9518 OF 2022
Bhakti Rajaram Bhutekar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
Page No.8
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
232 WRIT PETITION NO. 9520 OF 2022
Swapnil Rajendra Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
233 WRIT PETITION NO. 9521 OF 2022
Shashank Sambhaji Kunte And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
234 WRIT PETITION NO. 9522 OF 2022
Sangita Marotrao Kadam
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
235 WRIT PETITION NO. 9523 OF 2022
Kalpana Annasaheb Nikam
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
236 WRIT PETITION NO. 9524 OF 2022
Nagnath Mangusingh Pawar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
237 WRIT PETITION NO. 9526 OF 2022
Hemlata Subhash Chaudhari
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
238 WRIT PETITION NO. 9527 OF 2022
Aasif Khan Hamid Khan And Others
VERSUS
Page No.9
TET (GROUP).doc
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7577 OF 2024
IN WP/9527/2022
Shareen Begum Abdul Qakeer Deshmukh And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
239 WRIT PETITION NO. 9529 OF 2022
Vinod Prataprao Darade And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
240 WRIT PETITION NO. 9531 OF 2022
Shaikh Nishad Ahemad Mumtaj Ahemad And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
241 WRIT PETITION NO. 9532 OF 2022
Nimbalkar Devayani Govindrao
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3036 OF 2025
IN WP/9532/2022
Nimbalkar Devayani Govindrao
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
242 WRIT PETITION NO. 9533 OF 2022
Sachin Sambhaji Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
Page No.10
TET (GROUP).doc
243 WRIT PETITION NO. 9534 OF 2022
Dnyanoba Narsingrao Dawargaye
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
244 WRIT PETITION NO. 9535 OF 2022
Haribhau Bhanudas Raut
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
245 WRIT PETITION NO. 9536 OF 2022
Rani Abasaheb Kshirsagar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
246 WRIT PETITION NO. 9537 OF 2022
Anita Punjabrao Garud
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secreary And Others
AND
247 WRIT PETITION NO. 9539 OF 2022
Rahul Gomaji Pawar And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
248 WRIT PETITION NO. 9540 OF 2022
Aafreen Parveen Muzaffarali Sayyad
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
249 WRIT PETITION NO. 9542 OF 2022
Sushma Sunil Kalekar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
Page No.11
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
250 WRIT PETITION NO. 9543 OF 2022
Rajkumari Anilrao Kadam
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
251 WRIT PETITION NO. 9547 OF 2022
Shekhar Vishram Borse
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3034 OF 2025
IN WP/9547/2022
Shekhar Vishram Borse
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
252 WRIT PETITION NO. 9548 OF 2022
Darshan Shantilal Wanjari
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
253 WRIT PETITION NO. 9549 OF 2022
Mohammed Faraz Gulam Mohiuddin And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
254 WRIT PETITION NO. 9550 OF 2022
Rakhi Ratnakar Lavhande
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
Page No.12
TET (GROUP).doc
255 WRIT PETITION NO. 9551 OF 2022
Nagesh Sadashivappa Sugare And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
256 WRIT PETITION NO. 9552 OF 2022
Humera Aziz Sayyed And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7578 OF 2024
IN WP/9552/2022
Humera Aziz Sayyed And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
257 WRIT PETITION NO. 9553 OF 2022
Harshal Arunrao Deshmukh And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
258 WRIT PETITION NO. 9555 OF 2022
Swati Bhalchandra Sonje Alias Swati Vikas Kotkar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
259 WRIT PETITION NO. 9556 OF 2022
Rekha Bhaidas Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
260 WRIT PETITION NO. 9559 OF 2022
Raziya Anjum Samee Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
Page No.13
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
261 WRIT PETITION NO. 9560 OF 2022
Mallinath Melgiri Kante
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
262 WRIT PETITION NO. 9561 OF 2022
Vinodkumar Gunaji Wavhal
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
263 WRIT PETITION NO. 9562 OF 2022
Kalpana Bhagwanrao Popalghat
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
264 WRIT PETITION NO. 9565 OF 2022
Swati Nagosing Rajput Alias Ravindra Jadhav And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thorugh Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
265 WRIT PETITION NO. 9571 OF 2022
Mohammad Taslim Mohammad Ibrahim And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
266 WRIT PETITION NO. 9572 OF 2022
Manjushree Chandrakant Chaure
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
267 WRIT PETITION NO. 9574 OF 2022
Vaishali Rustumrao Kharat
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
Page No.14
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
268 WRIT PETITION NO. 9576 OF 2022
Naziya Aafreen Yousuf Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
269 WRIT PETITION NO. 9577 OF 2022
Avinash Vyankatrao Dalvi
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
270 WRIT PETITION NO. 9579 OF 2022
Sandip Bhaskar Deore
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
271 WRIT PETITION NO. 9580 OF 2022
Sucheta Baliram Gavit
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
272 WRIT PETITION NO. 9581 OF 2022
Shripat Bhagwanrao Dhage
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
273 WRIT PETITION NO. 9582 OF 2022
Kalyani Raju Madupati And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10604 OF 2025
IN WP/9573/2022
Page No.15
TET (GROUP).doc
Sunil Rameshrao Narwade And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10600 OF 2025
IN WP/11212/2023
Nilseh Ramsing Vasave
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9484 OF 2022
Vijaya Tukaram Shardul And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9431 OF 2022
Sayyed Sajid Ali Sadaquat Ali
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9488 OF 2022
Mayuri Shankar Patil And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8836 OF 2025
IN WP/10097/2022
Mohd Khaleel Mohammad Sahab Ansari
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4379 OF 2025
IN WP/793/2023
Sandhya Ashok Gode And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9432 OF 2022
Kishan Subhashrao Jadhav And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
Page No.16
TET (GROUP).doc
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10598 OF 2025
IN WP/9484/2022
Vijaya Tukaram Shardul And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 324 OF 2024
Shubhangi Hanumant Shingate
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary, Mumbai And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6697 OF 2025
IN WP/9431/2022
Sayyed Sajid Ali Sadaquat Ali
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9616 OF 2022
Dipika Shivdas Bagul
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4385 OF 2025
IN WP/9490/2022
Somnath Raghunath Kardile And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9525 OF 2022
Nalini Ravindra Patil Alias Nalini Ranjitsingh Thakor
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9505 OF 2022
Vasant Govindrao Kandhare And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
Page No.17
TET (GROUP).doc
WRIT PETITION NO. 9497 OF 2022
Rajaram Gyanoba Gavalwad
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9569 OF 2022
Pavan Marotirao Manekar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9502 OF 2022
Sweta Vinayak Pawar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11212 OF 2023
Nilseh Ramsing Vasave
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9512 OF 2022
Shivaji Nagorao Malegave And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4387 OF 2025
IN WP/9490/2022
Dipak Bandu Ahire And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9487 OF 2022
Santram Bhikaji Jumde And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9530 OF 2022
Utkarsh Sudhakar Aher And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
Page No.18
TET (GROUP).doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9578 OF 2022
Prakash Datta Jaybhaye
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4407 OF 2025
IN WP/10090/2022
Dnyaneshwar Sahebrao Misal
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9490 OF 2022
Dipak Bandu Ahire And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10045 OF 2022
Mayuri Ganpatgound Sudanwar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9748 OF 2022
Dnyaneshwar Gangadhar Yeske
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9538 OF 2025
IN WP/10085/2022
Heena Kausar Afzal Khan And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2719 OF 2025
Karishma Sanjay Desale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12184 OF 2025
Haseeb Habib Alias Habeeb Shaikh And Others
VERSUS
Page No.19
TET (GROUP).doc
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And
Another
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3668 OF 2026
IN WP/9748/2022
Dnyaneshwar Gangadhar Yeske
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5272 OF 2025
IN WP/324/2024
Shubhangi Hanumant Shingate
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary, Mumbai And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3260 OF 2025
Vijay Sitaram Johare And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And
Another
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2003 OF 2025
Paresh Pratapsingh Rajput
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10085 OF 2022
Heena Kausar Afzal Khan And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7213 OF 2025
Ganesh Andu Deshmukh And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5271 OF 2025
IN WP/9582/2022
Kalyani Raju Madupati And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
Page No.20
TET (GROUP).doc
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13505 OF 2024
IN WP/9597/2022
Nadim Ahmad Shaikh Ibrahim
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9597 OF 2022
Nadim Ahmad Shaikh Ibrahim
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9528 OF 2022
Sharad Ramdas Khalane
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3033 OF 2025
IN WP/9528/2022
Sharad Ramdas Khalane
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9554 OF 2022
Pooja Venkatrao Umate And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9557 OF 2022
Tahura Nausheen Mustafa Hussain Shaikh And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9568 OF 2022
Mohammed Maaz Md Mateen And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9570 OF 2022
Vaishali Vishwas Mhaske
VERSUS
Page No.21
TET (GROUP).doc
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9519 OF 2022
Ramesh Ramprasad Gadhave And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10090 OF 2022
Dnyaneshwar Sahebrao Misal
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10097 OF 2022
Mohd Khaleel Mohammad Sahab Ansari
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10650 OF 2022
Nabeela Tabassum Saeed Khan Durrani And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12162 OF 2022
Mayurkumar Sudhakarrao Deshmukh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1715 OF 2023
Pooja Vishnu Jadhav
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 793 OF 2023
Mayuri Bhimrao Gavhane And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9440 OF 2022
Naveed Mohammed Abu Mohamed Shaikh And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
Page No.22
TET (GROUP).doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9452 OF 2022
Anees Khan Nasir Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9465 OF 2022
Atul Tukaram Salunke And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9486 OF 2022
Dharmendra Udhavrao Navale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4405 OF 2025
IN WP/9519/2022
Ramesh Ramprasad Gadhave And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4408 OF 2025
IN WP/9568/2022
Mohammed Maaz Md Mateen And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4441 OF 2025
IN WP/9465/2022
Mahesh Ramdas Pawar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4442 OF 2025
IN WP/9465/2022
Yogesh Sominath Karpe
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
Page No.23
TET (GROUP).doc
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4444 OF 2025
IN WP/13105/2022
Saraswati Gangadhar Anmulwad
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4445 OF 2025
IN WP/9530/2022
Utkarsh Sudhakar Aher And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4472 OF 2025
IN WP/10102/2022
Sandeep Pundlik Kathar Alias Sandeep Pundlik Takalkar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4492 OF 2025
IN WP/9557/2022
Awez Haroon Shaikh And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4500 OF 2025
IN WP/9486/2022
Dharmendra Udhavrao Navale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4502 OF 2025
IN WP/9525/2022
Nalini Ravindra Patil Alias Nalini Ranjitsingh Thakor
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4506 OF 2025
IN WP/9570/2022
Vaishali Vishwas Mhaske
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
Page No.24
TET (GROUP).doc
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4512 OF 2025
IN WP/9452/2022
Anees Khan Nasir Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4528 OF 2025
IN WP/9554/2022
Shraddha Arvind Bodhekar And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6703 OF 2025
IN WP/10650/2022
Nabeela Tabassum Saeed Khan Durrani And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7949 OF 2025
IN WP/9568/2022
Sameena Begum Mohd Lukman
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8843 OF 2025
IN WP/9432/2022
Kishan Subhashrao Jadhav
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6716 OF 2025
IN WP/9440/2022
Naveed Mohammed Abu Mohamed Shaikh And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6714 OF 2025
IN WP/9440/2022
Sohel Din Mohammed Pathan And Another
VERSUS
Page No.25
TET (GROUP).doc
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13105 OF 2022
Saraswati Gangadhar Anmulwad
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4384 OF 2025
IN WP/9490/2022
Dinesh Nimba Deore
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4388 OF 2025
IN WP/9490/2022
Kishor Rustum Chaudhari
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4389 OF 2025
IN WP/9490/2022
Jyoti Karbhari Shirsath
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4386 OF 2025
IN WP/9490/2022
Satish Dnyaneshwar Ghodke And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4525 OF 2025
IN WP/9554/2022
Ganesh Popatrao Chavan And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4526 OF 2025
IN WP/9554/2022
Gautam Natharao Makasare
VERSUS
Page No.26
TET (GROUP).doc
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4527 OF 2025
IN WP/9554/2022
Prerana Kailas Wahule
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4529 OF 2025
IN WP/9554/2022
Annie Nitesh Shrisundar Alias Ani Ashok Khetre And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6263 OF 2025
IN WP/9519/2022
Shahzad Noor Shaikh And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4383 OF 2025
IN WP/9490/2022
Pratibha Digambarrao Wanarase
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4424 OF 2025
IN WP/9487/2022
Gajanan Janardhan Karhale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6733 OF 2025
IN WP/12162/2022
Mayurkumar Sudhakarrao Deshmukh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4378 OF 2025
IN WP/3972/2023
Gayatri Gulab Suryawanshi
Page No.27
TET (GROUP).doc
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5277 OF 2025
IN WP/9616/2022
Dipika Shivdas Bagul
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5279 OF 2025
IN WP/9488/2022
Mayuri Shankar Patil And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5337 OF 2025
IN WP/10045/2022
Mayuri Ganpatgound Sudanwar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5274 OF 2025
IN WP/9913/2022
Bandu Ambadas Gawali
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5281 OF 2025
IN WP/9497/2022
Rajaram Gyanoba Gavalwad
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5310 OF 2025
IN WP/9569/2022
Pavan Marotirao Manekar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5336 OF 2025
IN WP/9578/2022
Page No.28
TET (GROUP).doc
Prakash Datta Jaybhaye
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5338 OF 2025
IN WP/9505/2022
Vasant Govindrao Kandhare And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10594 OF 2025
IN WP/9502/2022
Sweta Vinayak Pawar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10595 OF 2025
IN WP/9512/2022
Shivaji Nagorao Malegave And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9573 OF 2022
Sunil Rameshrao Narwade And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11904 OF 2025
IN WP/9471/2022
Mosin Khan Husen Khan Pathan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9471 OF 2022
Mosin Khan Husen Khan Pathan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10102 OF 2022
Sandeep Pundlik Kathar Alias Sandeep Pundlik Takalkar
VERSUS
Page No.29
TET (GROUP).doc
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9913 OF 2022
Bandu Ambadas Gawali
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3972 OF 2023
Gayatri Gulab Suryawanshi
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6715 OF 2025
IN WP/9440/2022
Mushtaque Mohammed Noor Mohammed Shaikh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5720 OF 2025
IN WP/1715/2023
Pooja Vishnu Jadhav
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
274 WRIT PETITION NO. 9583 OF 2022
Dattu Laxman Chelekar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
275 WRIT PETITION NO. 9584 OF 2022
Prabhakar Hanmant Gundapwar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
276 WRIT PETITION NO. 9585 OF 2022
Shantaram Devidas Lokhande
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
Page No.30
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
277 WRIT PETITION NO. 9587 OF 2022
Abdul Azim Abdul Alim And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11958 OF 2025
IN WP/9587/2022
Abdul Azim Abdul Alim And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
278 WRIT PETITION NO. 9588 OF 2022
Sandip Prakash Borse And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
279 WRIT PETITION NO. 9590 OF 2022
Aref Khan Chand Khan Pathan And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
280 WRIT PETITION NO. 9591 OF 2022
Shahnawaz Husain Ajaj Husain Deshmukh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
281 WRIT PETITION NO. 9593 OF 2022
Indu Pandurang Sarode
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
Page No.31
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
282 WRIT PETITION NO. 9594 OF 2022
Aruna Pandurang Borude
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
283 WRIT PETITION NO. 9596 OF 2022
Shivcharan Raju Pawar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
284 WRIT PETITION NO. 9598 OF 2022
Khan Aijaz Ahmad Khan Nasrulla Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2199 OF 2025
IN WP/9598/2022
Khan Aijaz Ahmad Khan Nasrulla Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
285 WRIT PETITION NO. 9599 OF 2022
Zulkar Khan Ibadat Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
286 WRIT PETITION NO. 9600 OF 2022
Prashant Ishwar Chaudhari
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
287 WRIT PETITION NO. 9601 OF 2022
Fouziya Jahan Ayyub Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
Page No.32
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
288 WRIT PETITION NO. 9602 OF 2022
Ruksana Ramjan Tadavi
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
289 WRIT PETITION NO. 9603 OF 2022
Tushar Dilip Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
290 WRIT PETITION NO. 9604 OF 2022
Pankaj Mangal Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
291 WRIT PETITION NO. 9605 OF 2022
Varsha Pruthviraj Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
292 WRIT PETITION NO. 9606 OF 2022
Mohammed Ismail Mohammed Sadique Momin
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
293 WRIT PETITION NO. 9607 OF 2022
Absar Ahemad Mohammad Hanif Shaikh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
294 WRIT PETITION NO. 9608 OF 2022
Mirza Mohammad Ziya Razzaque Beg
Page No.33
TET (GROUP).doc
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
295 WRIT PETITION NO. 9609 OF 2022
Pooja Suresh Bagul
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
296 WRIT PETITION NO. 9610 OF 2022
Madhuri Asaram Bartake
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
297 WRIT PETITION NO. 9611 OF 2022
Dinkar Ravindra Wagh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
298 WRIT PETITION NO. 9612 OF 2022
Balasaheb Rambhau Shinde
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
299 WRIT PETITION NO. 9613 OF 2022
Manisha Jagannath Mahajan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
300 WRIT PETITION NO. 9614 OF 2022
Kavita Tukaram Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
Page No.34
TET (GROUP).doc
301 WRIT PETITION NO. 9615 OF 2022
Rukmin Baburao Mugale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
302 WRIT PETITION NO. 9730 OF 2022
Ranjeet Venkatrao Dange And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
303 WRIT PETITION NO. 9736 OF 2022
Sachin Pandharinath Pawar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
304 WRIT PETITION NO. 9744 OF 2022
Amol Prakash Sadarao
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
305 WRIT PETITION NO. 9745 OF 2022
Shaikh Rizwan Shaikh Yaqoob
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
306 WRIT PETITION NO. 9746 OF 2022
Kalpita Govinda Kore
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
307 WRIT PETITION NO. 9749 OF 2022
Sumayya Firdos Shaikh Ahmed
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
Page No.35
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
308 WRIT PETITION NO. 9750 OF 2022
Vijay Dnyaneshwar Kurhe
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Principal Secretary And
Others
AND
309 WRIT PETITION NO. 9753 OF 2022
Swapnil Sudam Shinde
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10141 OF 2025
IN WP/9753/2022
Swapnil Sudam Shinde
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
310 WRIT PETITION NO. 9754 OF 2022
Ajay Laxmanrao Kadam
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Principal Secretary And
Others
AND
311 WRIT PETITION NO. 9755 OF 2022
Syed Naseeroddin Hashmi Syed Yousuf Ali
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
312 WRIT PETITION NO. 9757 OF 2022
Jyoti Nivrutirao Kale And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10122 OF 2025
Page No.36
TET (GROUP).doc
IN WP/9757/2022
Jyoti Nivrutirao Kale And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
313 WRIT PETITION NO. 9759 OF 2022
Mateen Khanam Abdul Aleem Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
314 WRIT PETITION NO. 9760 OF 2022
Foziya Minahaj Afzal Ahmed Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
315 WRIT PETITION NO. 9761 OF 2022
Vaishali Ashokrao Dhanpalwar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
316 WRIT PETITION NO. 9762 OF 2022
Naziya Begum Ashfaq Hussain
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
317 WRIT PETITION NO. 9767 OF 2022
Amol Shivaji Patole
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10130 OF 2025
IN WP/9767/2022
Amol Shivaji Patole
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
Page No.37
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
318 WRIT PETITION NO. 9770 OF 2022
Sameera Farheen Abdul Rauf
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
319 WRIT PETITION NO. 9850 OF 2022
Smita Udaysing Sisode
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
320 WRIT PETITION NO. 9853 OF 2022
Akram Fatema Jaleel Ahmed And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
321 WRIT PETITION NO. 9881 OF 2022
Saraswati Govindrao Watane
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
322 WRIT PETITION NO. 9882 OF 2022
Nagesh Pralhad Sonar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
323 WRIT PETITION NO. 9886 OF 2022
Kanchan Harshal Chaudhary
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
324 WRIT PETITION NO. 9887 OF 2022
Ketankumar Jagannath Sonawane
Page No.38
TET (GROUP).doc
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
325 WRIT PETITION NO. 9891 OF 2022
Shaikh Zakera Asadullah
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
326 WRIT PETITION NO. 9892 OF 2022
Rahul Jijabrao Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
327 WRIT PETITION NO. 9893 OF 2022
Swapnil Damohdar Sangle
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
328 WRIT PETITION NO. 9894 OF 2022
Pravin Pandit Dhundale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
329 WRIT PETITION NO. 9895 OF 2022
Prasad Ravindra Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
330 WRIT PETITION NO. 9898 OF 2022
Mohd Afzal Qureshi Mohd Farooque Qureshi
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
Page No.39
TET (GROUP).doc
331 WRIT PETITION NO. 9907 OF 2022
Rekha Gangaram Dandegavkar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
332 WRIT PETITION NO. 9920 OF 2022
Dipashree Rajendra Mali
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
333 WRIT PETITION NO. 9924 OF 2022
Dipa Jagjivan Shah
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
334 WRIT PETITION NO. 10074 OF 2022
Ateequr Raheman Muqeet Ahmed
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
335 WRIT PETITION NO. 10075 OF 2022
Asma Begum Aleem Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
336 WRIT PETITION NO. 10076 OF 2022
Zeeshan Zakir Patel
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6321 OF 2023
IN WP/10076/2022
Zeeshan Zakir Patel
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Other
Page No.40
TET (GROUP).doc
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6325 OF 2023
IN WP/10076/2022
Zeeshan Zakir Patel
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Other
AND
337 WRIT PETITION NO. 10077 OF 2022
Balaji Bhanudas Kakade And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
338 WRIT PETITION NO. 10078 OF 2022
Abdullah Saud Bashiruz Zama
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
339 WRIT PETITION NO. 10079 OF 2022
Ammara Maryam Bashiruz Zama
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
340 WRIT PETITION NO. 10080 OF 2022
Mahveen Fatema Mirza Kalim Baig
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
341 WRIT PETITION NO. 10081 OF 2022
Mohammed Ismail Abdul Razzaque
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
342 WRIT PETITION NO. 10082 OF 2022
Abdul Rub Abdul Habeeb
Page No.41
TET (GROUP).doc
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
343 WRIT PETITION NO. 10083 OF 2022
Neha Mohammed Afsar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
344 WRIT PETITION NO. 10084 OF 2022
Abbasi Mohammed Zubair
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
345 WRIT PETITION NO. 10087 OF 2022
Ganesh Ankush Shelar And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
346 WRIT PETITION NO. 10088 OF 2022
Shital Sunil Badgujar And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
347 WRIT PETITION NO. 10089 OF 2022
Sobiya Nazneen Md Rafiuddin
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
348 WRIT PETITION NO. 10092 OF 2022
Dinesh Pundlik Chaudhari
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
Page No.42
TET (GROUP).doc
349 WRIT PETITION NO. 10093 OF 2022
Harshal Pandurang Mahajan And Other
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Other
AND
350 WRIT PETITION NO. 10095 OF 2022
Surekha Baban Khedkar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
351 WRIT PETITION NO. 10096 OF 2022
Sarita Kacharu Kathar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
352 WRIT PETITION NO. 10098 OF 2022
Sachin Sonaji Chavan And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
353 WRIT PETITION NO. 10099 OF 2022
Abhijeet Shankarrao Jagtap
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
354 WRIT PETITION NO. 10100 OF 2022
Raju Motising Kuwar And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
355 WRIT PETITION NO. 10103 OF 2022
Rajendra Mohan Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
Page No.43
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
356 WRIT PETITION NO. 10104 OF 2022
Gangasagar Asaram Kadam And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
357 WRIT PETITION NO. 10105 OF 2022
Shital Rajendra More And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
358 WRIT PETITION NO. 10109 OF 2022
Reshma Shivaji Kele And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
359 WRIT PETITION NO. 10110 OF 2022
Rajiv Maroty Gundile
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
360 WRIT PETITION NO. 10113 OF 2022
Muzammil Ambari Abdul Karim
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
361 WRIT PETITION NO. 10240 OF 2022
Shaikh Altaf Danish Chand Pasha
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
362 WRIT PETITION NO. 10248 OF 2022
Page No.44
TET (GROUP).doc
Santosh Devrao Shelke
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
363 WRIT PETITION NO. 10338 OF 2022
Sayyed Taufeek Ahemad Khalil Ahemad
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
364 WRIT PETITION NO. 10356 OF 2022
Mohd Mohtashim Soheb Mohd Muneeruddin
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
365 WRIT PETITION NO. 10445 OF 2022
Rajya Divlya Tadvi
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
366 WRIT PETITION NO. 10447 OF 2022
Dinesh Sakharam Chavan And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
367 WRIT PETITION NO. 10451 OF 2022
Rupali Prakashrao Deshmukh Alias Rupali Deepak Jahagirdar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
368 WRIT PETITION NO. 10452 OF 2022
Natvar Bayja Patale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
Page No.45
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
369 WRIT PETITION NO. 10462 OF 2022
Varsha Sheshrao Gadhave
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
370 WRIT PETITION NO. 10480 OF 2022
Eknath Sopanrao Tale And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
371 WRIT PETITION NO. 10481 OF 2022
Dnyaneshwar Namdev Sangave
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
372 WRIT PETITION NO. 10486 OF 2022
Manoj Dnyanoba More And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
373 WRIT PETITION NO. 10487 OF 2022
Avinash Nagorao Kandhare
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
374 WRIT PETITION NO. 10554 OF 2022
Pathan Parvej Munirkhan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
375 WRIT PETITION NO. 10574 OF 2022
Sudam Bapu Mujage
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
Page No.46
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
376 WRIT PETITION NO. 10628 OF 2022
Jayashri Digambar Borchate
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
377 WRIT PETITION NO. 10643 OF 2022
Hajera Begum Mohammad Yosuf Momin And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
378 WRIT PETITION NO. 10648 OF 2022
Baloch Abdul Haq Gulam Qadar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
379 WRIT PETITION NO. 10649 OF 2022
Shoeb Abdul Sattar Khatik
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
380 WRIT PETITION NO. 10662 OF 2022
Archana Laxman Kuklare
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
381 WRIT PETITION NO. 10665 OF 2022
Mohammed Junaid Mohammed Taher
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
382 WRIT PETITION NO. 10673 OF 2022
Page No.47
TET (GROUP).doc
Sachin Upendra Puranik
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
383 WRIT PETITION NO. 10676 OF 2022
Nitesh Ashok Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
384 WRIT PETITION NO. 10759 OF 2022
Ganesh Pandit Chavan And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
385 WRIT PETITION NO. 10864 OF 2022
Shobha Pundalik Jadhav And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
386 WRIT PETITION NO. 10879 OF 2022
Rakesh Ramesh Koli
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
387 WRIT PETITION NO. 10885 OF 2022
Shaikh Ahmed Shaikh Hameed
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
388 WRIT PETITION NO. 10921 OF 2022
Usmani Aruba Jamal Liyaqat Ali
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
Page No.48
TET (GROUP).doc
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9543 OF 2025
IN WP/10921/2022
Usmani Aruba Jamal Liyaqat Ali
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
389 WRIT PETITION NO. 10922 OF 2022
Sachin Bhimrao Lokhande And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
390 WRIT PETITION NO. 10923 OF 2022
Swati Bharat Koli
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
391 WRIT PETITION NO. 10935 OF 2022
Dnyaneshwar Waman Jadhav
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
392 WRIT PETITION NO. 10936 OF 2022
Balaji Bajirao Jadhav
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
393 WRIT PETITION NO. 10951 OF 2022
Shilatai Limbaji Naik
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
394 WRIT PETITION NO. 10956 OF 2022
Kundlik Bhanudas Rathod And Others
VERSUS
Page No.49
TET (GROUP).doc
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
395 WRIT PETITION NO. 10960 OF 2022
Archana Damodar Jogdand
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
396 WRIT PETITION NO. 11250 OF 2022
Nasreen Abdul Raheman Shaikh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
397 WRIT PETITION NO. 11253 OF 2022
Priyanka Narsing Mule Alias Priyanka Sachin Pawar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Principal Secretary And
Others
AND
398 WRIT PETITION NO. 11254 OF 2022
Ashanka Narsing Mule
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Principal Secretary And
Others
AND
399 WRIT PETITION NO. 11614 OF 2022
Amol Bapuji Baviskar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
400 WRIT PETITION NO. 11676 OF 2022
Punyrath Surybhan Khandagale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
Page No.50
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
401 WRIT PETITION NO. 11677 OF 2022
Ajay Amarsingh Nimbalkar And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
402 WRIT PETITION NO. 11690 OF 2022
Mohammad Yaqub Mohammad Ibrahim
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
403 WRIT PETITION NO. 12137 OF 2022
Nilesh Maroti Rathod
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretay And Others
AND
404 WRIT PETITION NO. 12139 OF 2022
Anil Gangadhar Salunke And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
405 WRIT PETITION NO. 12149 OF 2022
Vinod Ashok Gadekar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
406 WRIT PETITION NO. 12206 OF 2022
Pathan Mohammad Khan Chand Khan And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretay And Others
AND
407 WRIT PETITION NO. 12207 OF 2022
Digambar Kisan Pawar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
Page No.51
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
408 WRIT PETITION NO. 12222 OF 2022
Sanap Dropadi Vaijinath And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Though Its Secretary Education And Sports
Department And Others
AND
409 WRIT PETITION NO. 12234 OF 2022
Rekha Gokul Chudhari
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
410 WRIT PETITION NO. 12237 OF 2022
Syeda Tanzeela Fatima Sayyad Shamshand
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
411 WRIT PETITION NO. 12488 OF 2022
Abdul Quaiyyum Abdussamad Shaikh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
412 WRIT PETITION NO. 12928 OF 2022
Ahmad Pasha Ismail Nabi Shaikh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
413 WRIT PETITION NO. 12932 OF 2022
Shaikh Tabassum Begum Khaja Qumruddin
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
Page No.52
TET (GROUP).doc
414 WRIT PETITION NO. 13047 OF 2022
Rohit Vishwanath Tarte
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Additional Chief Secretary And
Others
AND
415 WRIT PETITION NO. 13120 OF 2022
Vaibhav Ramesh Mohane
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
416 WRIT PETITION NO. 72 OF 2023
Nileshkumar Chotulala Chaudhari And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
417 WRIT PETITION NO. 96 OF 2023
Manohar Hiraman Bhoye
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
418 WRIT PETITION NO. 97 OF 2023
Tensingh Baburao Vasave
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
419 WRIT PETITION NO. 98 OF 2023
Dhiraj Laxman Bandichode And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
420 WRIT PETITION NO. 103 OF 2023
Girish Tarachand Chavhan And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
Page No.53
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
421 WRIT PETITION NO. 105 OF 2023
Jayshree Ashok Potawade And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
422 WRIT PETITION NO. 106 OF 2023
Kishore Murlidhar Mahale And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
423 WRIT PETITION NO. 120 OF 2023
Shilpandu Ajay Singh And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
AND
424 WRIT PETITION NO. 210 OF 2023
Bangale Ramchandra Bhujunga And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
425 WRIT PETITION NO. 287 OF 2023
Priti Shantill Chaudhari
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
426 WRIT PETITION NO. 342 OF 2023
Mohsin Ahemad Iqbal Mulla And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
Page No.54
TET (GROUP).doc
427 WRIT PETITION NO. 343 OF 2023
Swati Swapnil Patil And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
428 WRIT PETITION NO. 351 OF 2023
Laxman Gokul Bagul
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
429 WRIT PETITION NO. 479 OF 2023
Rahul Suresh Dhangar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
431 WRIT PETITION NO. 1082 OF 2023
Mohammed Fuzail Awais Mohammed Fasihuddin
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
432 WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2023
Sadiya Fatema Anawar Ali Shah
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
433 WRIT PETITION NO. 1514 OF 2023
Farzana Mohammad Shaikh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through District Collector And Others
AND
434 WRIT PETITION NO. 1647 OF 2023
Suryakant Kashinath Katkade
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
Page No.55
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
435 WRIT PETITION NO. 1816 OF 2023
Shaikh Danish Ahmed Shaikh Hameed
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
436 WRIT PETITION NO. 1945 OF 2023
Avinash Prakash Kadam
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
437 WRIT PETITION NO. 1977 OF 2023
Rajendra Govindrao Kalpe
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
438 WRIT PETITION NO. 2004 OF 2023
Vishal Krishnadas Wagh And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
439 WRIT PETITION NO. 2032 OF 2023
Swapnil Kadu Deokar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
440 WRIT PETITION NO. 2055 OF 2023
Qureshi Mudassir Shehzad Naseer Khan
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
Page No.56
TET (GROUP).doc
441 WRIT PETITION NO. 2056 OF 2023
Pathan Sufiyan Ahmad Khan Pathan Anis Ahmed Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
442 WRIT PETITION NO. 2057 OF 2023
Swati Gautam Sonawane
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
443 WRIT PETITION NO. 2789 OF 2023
Shaziya Anjum Md Azeem Shaikh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And
Another
AND
444 WRIT PETITION NO. 2835 OF 2023
Nitin Madhukar Sonwane
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
446 WRIT PETITION NO. 4202 OF 2023
Sanjay Jayram Chaure And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
AND
447 WRIT PETITION NO. 4203 OF 2023
Shaikh Sabir Shaikh Jamrud Patve And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
448 WRIT PETITION NO. 4205 OF 2023
Monika Lahu Chavan And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
Page No.57
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
449 WRIT PETITION NO. 4208 OF 2023
Vilas Gardya Vasave And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
AND
450 WRIT PETITION NO. 4338 OF 2023
Farooqui Mudassir Ahmed
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
451 WRIT PETITION NO. 4364 OF 2023
Pramod Dilip Gote
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
452 WRIT PETITION NO. 4365 OF 2023
Umesh Gopal Kulkarni
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Principal Secretary And
Others
AND
453 WRIT PETITION NO. 4366 OF 2023
Ravindra Ramdas Patkar And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
454 WRIT PETITION NO. 4367 OF 2023
Ravindra Maharugir Gosavi
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
AND
Page No.58
TET (GROUP).doc
455 WRIT PETITION NO. 4373 OF 2023
Pravin Sudam Deshmukh And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
456 WRIT PETITION NO. 4422 OF 2023
Neetabai Ravindra Chaudhari
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
457 WRIT PETITION NO. 4630 OF 2023
Amol Manohar Pawar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
458 WRIT PETITION NO. 4688 OF 2023
Sandip Abhmanyu Pradhan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
459 WRIT PETITION NO. 4765 OF 2023
Ashwinee Ashok Jadhav
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
460 WRIT PETITION NO. 5419 OF 2023
Kisanrao More Education Society Through Its President
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
461 WRIT PETITION NO. 5421 OF 2023
Pravin Govind Surve
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
Page No.59
TET (GROUP).doc
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7292 OF 2023
IN WP/5418/2023
Gajanan Shahu Keripale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 212 OF 2023
Digvijay Dattatray Inamdar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7300 OF 2023
IN WP/5422/2023
Pratibha Sanjay Bhoye Nee Pratibha Laxman Bagul
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5418 OF 2023
Gajanan Shahu Keripale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7294 OF 2023
IN WP/5417/2023
Shahzadeaalam Mushtaque Sandarwale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1334 OF 2024
IN WP/1374/2024
Fatima Akram Ichalkaranje
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1370 OF 2024
Ikhlaque Azeem Patel
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
Page No.60
TET (GROUP).doc
WRIT PETITION NO. 1374 OF 2024
Fatima Akram Ichalkaranje
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5420 OF 2023
Nutan Vinayak Pingulkar Nee Nutan Vinayak Shenai
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11230 OF 2023
Amit Mahadev Lad
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary And Ors
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5417 OF 2023
Shahzadeaalam Mushtaque Sandarwale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11215 OF 2023
Manisha Eknath Bagane Name After Marriage Smt. Manisha Jaywant
Korane
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary, Mumbai And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1332 OF 2024
IN WP/1370/2024
Ikhlaque Azeem Patel
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 320 OF 2024
Ashwini Vilas Honmane
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5422 OF 2023
Pratibha Sanjay Bhoye Nee Pratibha Laxman Bagul
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
Page No.61
TET (GROUP).doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11241 OF 2023
Inamulhasan Ayyubali Patel
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary School Education And
Sports Dept. Mumbai And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 974 OF 2024
Mohsinahmed Iqbalsab Mulla
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 99 OF 2023
Sumaiya Salil Juwale Nee Sumaia Sayeed Ibji
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1373 OF 2024
Amaranath Kaniram Rathod
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1371 OF 2024
Nilesh Chandu Rathod
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
AND
462 WRIT PETITION NO. 5428 OF 2023
Vidya Vishnu Patil And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
463 WRIT PETITION NO. 5429 OF 2023
Swapnil Bhagwan Patil And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
Page No.62
TET (GROUP).doc
464 WRIT PETITION NO. 5440 OF 2023
Sonal Rajendra Morey And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
465 WRIT PETITION NO. 5441 OF 2023
Vandana Barku Chaudhari
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
466 WRIT PETITION NO. 5470 OF 2023
Prashant Panditrao Pradhan And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
467 WRIT PETITION NO. 5736 OF 2023
Sunil Dhanraj Bhusare And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
468 WRIT PETITION NO. 6319 OF 2023
Nikhil Nandu Thakare And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
AND
469 WRIT PETITION NO. 6320 OF 2023
Chhaya Dilip Chavan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
AND
470 WRIT PETITION NO. 6322 OF 2023
Shaikh Sanober Yusuf And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
Page No.63
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
471 WRIT PETITION NO. 6345 OF 2023
Swati Kashinath Singanwad
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
472 WRIT PETITION NO. 7152 OF 2023
Umadevi Vasantrao Sonawane
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
473 WRIT PETITION NO. 7154 OF 2023
Sudam Bowaji Pawar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary, Mumbai And
Others
AND
474 WRIT PETITION NO. 7401 OF 2023
Abuzaid Ahmad Mohd Iqbal
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others
AND
475 WRIT PETITION NO. 7402 OF 2023
Pallavi Suresh Shevane And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
AND
476 WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2023
Poonam Bhikan Shewale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
Page No.64
TET (GROUP).doc
477 WRIT PETITION NO. 7415 OF 2023
Archana Subhash Garud
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
AND
478 WRIT PETITION NO. 7416 OF 2023
Sweety Samuel D Souza And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
AND
479 WRIT PETITION NO. 7417 OF 2023
Shaikh Bushra Mohammad Mizan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And
Another
AND
480 WRIT PETITION NO. 7418 OF 2023
Maharu Tukaram Bhoye
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
AND
481 WRIT PETITION NO. 7472 OF 2023
Pratiksha Pralhad Wagh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Chief Secretary And Others
AND
482 WRIT PETITION NO. 7587 OF 2023
Laxmi Devidas Umbarkar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
483 WRIT PETITION NO. 7670 OF 2023
Shailesh Kalba Kasabe
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary Department Of School
Page No.65
TET (GROUP).doc
Education And Others
AND
484 WRIT PETITION NO. 8108 OF 2023
Shaikh Husna Yasmeen Shaikh Hameed
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary School Education
Department And Others
AND
485 WRIT PETITION NO. 8135 OF 2023
Shaikh Humera Bano Azam Hussain
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
486 WRIT PETITION NO. 8453 OF 2023
Rutuja Vinot Mulke
VERSUS
The Commissioner Mahrashtra Staet Examination Parishad Pune And
Others
AND
487 WRIT PETITION NO. 8457 OF 2023
Anisa Begam Nurkhan Pathan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports And
Department And Others
AND
488 WRIT PETITION NO. 8459 OF 2023
Vivek Dhanpal Zamare
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports And
Department And Others
AND
489 WRIT PETITION NO. 8460 OF 2023
Mohammad Faisal Sheikh Rahim Bharti
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
Page No.66
TET (GROUP).doc
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9585 OF 2026
IN WP/8460/2023
Mohammad Faisal Sheikh Rahim Bharti
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Education And Sports Dept And Others
AND
490 WRIT PETITION NO. 8461 OF 2023
Mohd Arshad Mohd Rafique Patel
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Education And Sports
Department And Others
AND
491 WRIT PETITION NO. 8462 OF 2023
Mirza Sufyan Baig Mirza Sattar Baig
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others
AND
492 WRIT PETITION NO. 8463 OF 2023
Sadaf Parveen Shafique Khan And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others
AND
493 WRIT PETITION NO. 8513 OF 2023
Manohar Ulaji Khandavi Alias Navasu Alushya Khandavi
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Principal Secreary And
Others
AND
494 WRIT PETITION NO. 8521 OF 2023
Md Rasheed Saleem Ab Qadeer
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others
Page No.67
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
495 WRIT PETITION NO. 8600 OF 2023
Mohammad Nadeem Mohammad Saleem And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
496 WRIT PETITION NO. 8837 OF 2023
Joyti Popatrao Bhosale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
497 WRIT PETITION NO. 8846 OF 2023
Uzma Fatema Rafeeque Baig Mirza And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary Education And
Sports Department And Others
AND
498 WRIT PETITION NO. 8855 OF 2023
Sulbha Kiran Dhamode And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
499 WRIT PETITION NO. 9057 OF 2023
Rajendra Bhaurao Deshmukh And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
AND
500 WRIT PETITION NO. 9760 OF 2023
Javed Khan Aziz Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
AND
Page No.68
TET (GROUP).doc
501 WRIT PETITION NO. 9763 OF 2023
Savita Bhaurao Tirbude
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others
AND
502 WRIT PETITION NO. 9787 OF 2023
Shahbaz Ahmad Khan Mohd Ismail Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
503 WRIT PETITION NO. 9788 OF 2023
Zahid Khan Kale Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
504 WRIT PETITION NO. 9789 OF 2023
Mohd Yusuf Khan Ismail Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
505 WRIT PETITION NO. 9790 OF 2023
Sajid Iqbal Qamruddin
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
506 WRIT PETITION NO. 9796 OF 2023
Salman Khan Zafar Khan Deshmukh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
507 WRIT PETITION NO. 9797 OF 2023
Imran Khan Aliyar Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
Page No.69
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
508 WRIT PETITION NO. 9802 OF 2023
Khan Irfan Ahmad Ibrahim
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
509 WRIT PETITION NO. 9803 OF 2023
Abdullah Khan Mohd Ibrahim Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
510 WRIT PETITION NO. 9804 OF 2023
Abdul Raheman Khan Ibrahim Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
511 WRIT PETITION NO. 10456 OF 2023
Siddheshwar Nivrutti Kute
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
512 WRIT PETITION NO. 10458 OF 2023
Munizza Jabeen Yusuf Khan And Others
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
513 WRIT PETITION NO. 10465 OF 2023
Naziya Tarannum Abdul Zameer
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9584 OF 2026
IN WP/10465/2023
Page No.70
TET (GROUP).doc
Naziya Tarannum Abdul Zameer
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Thr Education And Sports Dept And Others
AND
514 WRIT PETITION NO. 10698 OF 2023
Mohammad Javed Iqbal Abdul Waheed
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others
AND
515 WRIT PETITION NO. 10700 OF 2023
Mohammad Sagheer Mohammad Shawkat
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Another
AND
516 WRIT PETITION NO. 10815 OF 2023
Raju Jagannath Mehetre
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
517 WRIT PETITION NO. 10816 OF 2023
Nandkishor Dattatray Mhaske
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Throuhg Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
518 WRIT PETITION NO. 10817 OF 2023
Vaibhav Arvind Shingne
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
519 WRIT PETITION NO. 10822 OF 2023
Mohd Ameen Mohd Akbar And Others
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
Page No.71
TET (GROUP).doc
And Another
AND
520 WRIT PETITION NO. 10877 OF 2023
Ratna Prakash Tarware
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others
AND
521 WRIT PETITION NO. 10878 OF 2023
Sohail Ahmed Ansari Khaleel Ansari
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others
AND
522 WRIT PETITION NO. 10879 OF 2023
Sujit Purushottam Diwate
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Throuhg Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
523 WRIT PETITION NO. 10887 OF 2023
Minal Vasant Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Throuhg Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
524 WRIT PETITION NO. 10888 OF 2023
Janaid Khan Hamid Khan And Others
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Another
AND
525 WRIT PETITION NO. 10943 OF 2023
Ashutosh Arvindrao Rajeingle
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
Page No.72
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
526 WRIT PETITION NO. 11076 OF 2023
Bandu Dhrupatrao Dhakne
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
527 WRIT PETITION NO. 11172 OF 2023
Mohd Waseem Sheikh Amir And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others
AND
528 WRIT PETITION NO. 11173 OF 2023
Mohd Faizan Mohd Sabir
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others
AND
529 WRIT PETITION NO. 11174 OF 2023
Nuzhat Pravin Aabid Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others
AND
530 WRIT PETITION NO. 11175 OF 2023
Darkhsha Tahaseen Kalimoddin
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others
AND
531 WRIT PETITION NO. 11213 OF 2023
Jubair Hussain Mahapule
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Thr. The Principal Secretary And Others
Page No.73
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
532 WRIT PETITION NO. 11214 OF 2023
Varsha Manoj Bhosale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Secretary, Department Of School
Education And Sports And Others
AND
533 WRIT PETITION NO. 11216 OF 2023
Mohammed Sajid Abdul Kadar Patwekar And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
534 WRIT PETITION NO. 11318 OF 2023
Savita Trimbak Ghadge
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Chief Secretary And Others
AND
535 WRIT PETITION NO. 11650 OF 2023
Zameer Khan Yunus Khan And Others
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Another
AND
536 WRIT PETITION NO. 11671 OF 2023
Sayyad Danish Ali Akbarali
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7573 OF 2024
IN WP/11671/2023
Sayyad Danish Ali Akbarali
VERSUS
The Maharashtra State Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
Page No.74
TET (GROUP).doc
537 WRIT PETITION NO. 11696 OF 2023
Mohamad Mudassir Abdul Rashid
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
AND
538 WRIT PETITION NO. 11702 OF 2023
Syed Javed Ali Afsar Ali
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others
AND
539 WRIT PETITION NO. 11846 OF 2023
Ashwini Kashinath Jadhav
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
540 WRIT PETITION NO. 12335 OF 2023
Salim Munaf Tadvi
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
541 WRIT PETITION NO. 12535 OF 2023
Kavita Ankush Shankpal
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
542 WRIT PETITION NO. 12854 OF 2023
Nisar Ahmed Shafique Ahmed (maniya)
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
AND
543 WRIT PETITION NO. 12869 OF 2023
Mayabai Hilal Bhamare
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
Page No.75
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
544 WRIT PETITION NO. 12939 OF 2023
Mohammad Siddique Ashraf Tadvi Bheel
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
AND
545 WRIT PETITION NO. 13111 OF 2023
Dmello Larisa Brazil And Ors
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
546 WRIT PETITION NO. 13236 OF 2023
Smita Ramesh Barela
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary Others
AND
547 WRIT PETITION NO. 13375 OF 2023
Sandip Motu Pawar And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13388 OF 2023
Varsha Vinayak Ahire
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13390 OF 2023
Poonam Valmik Shinde And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13344 OF 2023
Swati Arjun Markand
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
Page No.76
TET (GROUP).doc
WRIT PETITION NO. 13359 OF 2023
Vishal Dilip Salunke
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thorugh The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13387 OF 2023
Uttam Somnath Gangode And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Another
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13389 OF 2023
Swati Ravindra Pagar And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13365 OF 2023
Manisha Kashinath Gaikwad And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13348 OF 2023
Arun Raghunath Mahadik
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13356 OF 2023
Archana Vilas Shelar And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13350 OF 2023
Rupali Babulal Jadhav
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13351 OF 2023
Girish Kailash Sawant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
Page No.77
TET (GROUP).doc
WRIT PETITION NO. 13362 OF 2023
Sujata Vinayak Awale And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13343 OF 2023
Nilambari Dhananjay Buchude
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13346 OF 2023
Stephie Sushant Ransing Alias Stephie Sebastian John
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13371 OF 2023
Shephie Sushant Ransing Alias Stehie Sebastian John
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13357 OF 2023
Savita Nivrutti Bansode
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
AND
548 WRIT PETITION NO. 13429 OF 2023
Shantanu Sanjay Mali
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
549 WRIT PETITION NO. 13464 OF 2023
Kavita Bhaidas Marathe
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
Page No.78
TET (GROUP).doc
550 WRIT PETITION NO. 13475 OF 2023
Usha Vasudev Vasave
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
551 WRIT PETITION NO. 14050 OF 2023
Mohammad Muslim Raees Ahmad
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
552 WRIT PETITION NO. 14072 OF 2023
Marathe Sandeep Pandit
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
553 WRIT PETITION NO. 14235 OF 2023
Chapparband Fakir Ajmal Shah Shabbir Shah And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
554 WRIT PETITION NO. 14507 OF 2023
Yasmeen Naeem Ahmad
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
555 WRIT PETITION NO. 14534 OF 2023
Vikas Ravindra Mahirrao
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
556 WRIT PETITION NO. 14600 OF 2023
Sheikh Arif Sheikh Aabed
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
Page No.79
TET (GROUP).doc
And Others
AND
557 WRIT PETITION NO. 14887 OF 2023
Sonam Sanjay Adhav And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1973 OF 2024
IN WP/14887/2023
Rameshwar Vitthalrao Kakade
VERSUS
Sonam Sanjay Adhav And Others
AND
558 WRIT PETITION NO. 100 OF 2024
Meenakshi Ramulu Pavilollu
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
AND
559 WRIT PETITION NO. 101 OF 2024
Krupali Kailas Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
AND
560 WRIT PETITION NO. 176 OF 2024
Toufiq Khan Rafiq Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others
AND
561 WRIT PETITION NO. 319 OF 2024
Pawan Haridas Timande
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through The Principal Secretary And Others
AND
Page No.80
TET (GROUP).doc
562 WRIT PETITION NO. 323 OF 2024
Saleem Aziz Nalband
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Thr The Principal Secretary Dept. Of School
Edu. And Others
AND
563 WRIT PETITION NO. 325 OF 2024
Owez Ibrahim Panhalkar
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Thr The Principal Secretary Dept. Of School
Edu. Mumbai And Others
AND
564 WRIT PETITION NO. 326 OF 2024
Kuldeep Eknath Desale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
AND
565 WRIT PETITION NO. 327 OF 2024
Kiran Dipak Vyalij
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
AND
566 WRIT PETITION NO. 328 OF 2024
Suvarna Dilip Ahire
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
AND
567 WRIT PETITION NO. 600 OF 2024
Sumant Dattatray Ahire And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
AND
Page No.81
TET (GROUP).doc
568 WRIT PETITION NO. 602 OF 2024
Sayyad Nayab Kausar Zahid Ali
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Ors
AND
569 WRIT PETITION NO. 603 OF 2024
Mohammad Wasif Mohd Ghasi
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
AND
570 WRIT PETITION NO. 631 OF 2024
Shubham Sandip Bhosle
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
571 WRIT PETITION NO. 638 OF 2024
Suraj Govind Mali
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
572 WRIT PETITION NO. 642 OF 2024
Tejaswani Kiran Mahire And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
AND
573 WRIT PETITION NO. 643 OF 2024
Ramji Sikandar Pinjari And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
AND
574 WRIT PETITION NO. 644 OF 2024
Asha Bandu Sonawane And Ors
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Ors
Page No.82
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
575 WRIT PETITION NO. 645 OF 2024
Rohit Subhash Chavan And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
AND
576 WRIT PETITION NO. 646 OF 2024
Nilesh Anil Baviskar And Ors
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Ors
AND
577 WRIT PETITION NO. 648 OF 2024
Subitcha Paulmani Nadar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Ors
AND
578 WRIT PETITION NO. 658 OF 2024
Sawkar Rahul Shantaram And Ors
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Ors
AND
579 WRIT PETITION NO. 716 OF 2024
Rajendra Yadav Ahire And Ors
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Ors
AND
580 WRIT PETITION NO. 717 OF 2024
Patil Bhushan Shantilal And Ors
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Ors
AND
Page No.83
TET (GROUP).doc
581 WRIT PETITION NO. 718 OF 2024
Sachin Ganpat Chimate
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Ors
AND
582 WRIT PETITION NO. 719 OF 2024
Ramdas Bhaidas Pawara And Ors
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Ors
AND
583 WRIT PETITION NO. 720 OF 2024
Nilofer Nijmuddin Saiyad And Anr
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Ors
AND
584 WRIT PETITION NO. 721 OF 2024
Kiran Dagdu Tadvi
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Ors
AND
585 WRIT PETITION NO. 984 OF 2024
Smita Nandkishor Gaikwad And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
586 WRIT PETITION NO. 985 OF 2024
Bharatsing Goval Vasave And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
587 WRIT PETITION NO. 1246 OF 2024
Santosh Hiryanna Narute And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
Page No.84
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
588 WRIT PETITION NO. 1247 OF 2024
Prajakta Suyakant Phadtare And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
AND
589 WRIT PETITION NO. 1248 OF 2024
Darade Shreenivas Bhagwan And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
590 WRIT PETITION NO. 1250 OF 2024
Gopinath Parashram Palvi
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
AND
591 WRIT PETITION NO. 1251 OF 2024
Priyanka Rangnath Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
AND
592 WRIT PETITION NO. 1276 OF 2024
Suraj Pushpadant Ingale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1330 OF 2024
IN WP/1276/2024
Suraj Pushpadant Ingale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
AND
Page No.85
TET (GROUP).doc
593 WRIT PETITION NO. 1300 OF 2024
Mohd Sabir Abdul Wahab
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Secreary And Others
AND
594 WRIT PETITION NO. 1303 OF 2024
Shoeb Khan Ayyub Khan And Another
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others
AND
595 WRIT PETITION NO. 1304 OF 2024
Imran Javed Hasan Khan And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Education And Sports
Departmnent And Others
AND
596 WRIT PETITION NO. 1305 OF 2024
Mangesh Jayadev Bhimte
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Eduction And Sports Department And
Others
AND
597 WRIT PETITION NO. 1306 OF 2024
Pravinkumar Vasantrao Borkar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports And
Department And Others
AND
598 WRIT PETITION NO. 1307 OF 2024
Ejaz Khan Ramzan Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others
Page No.86
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
599 WRIT PETITION NO. 1308 OF 2024
Madhuri Bhushan Bangde
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports And
Department And Others
AND
600 WRIT PETITION NO. 1312 OF 2024
Ziyaul Haq Abdul Haq
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
601 WRIT PETITION NO. 1313 OF 2024
Asma Parveen Mohammad Noor
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others
AND
602 WRIT PETITION NO. 1314 OF 2024
Mohd Gulam Dastgir Muhammad Noor
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others
AND
603 WRIT PETITION NO. 1315 OF 2024
Rekha Ramdas Waghmare
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others
AND
604 WRIT PETITION NO. 1316 OF 2024
Rajeev Prakashrao Khirodkar
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
Page No.87
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
605 WRIT PETITION NO. 1317 OF 2024
Ujwala Manikrao Wankhede W/d Shri Vivek Raut
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
606 WRIT PETITION NO. 1319 OF 2024
Vivek Kawduji Burile
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others
AND
607 WRIT PETITION NO. 1320 OF 2024
Mohammad Aamir Abdul Sattar
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others
AND
608 WRIT PETITION NO. 1321 OF 2024
Mohammad Noor Abdul Qayyum
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others
AND
609 WRIT PETITION NO. 1359 OF 2024
Nitin Shivaji Varkad And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary, Dept. Of School Edu.
And Sports And Others
AND
610 WRIT PETITION NO. 1360 OF 2024
Anuradha Vinayak Joshi
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Mumbai Thr Secretary And Others
Page No.88
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
611 WRIT PETITION NO. 1362 OF 2024
Vahida Raju Shaikh
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Thr The Principal Secretary And Others
AND
612 WRIT PETITION NO. 1369 OF 2024
Dilshadbi Jamalsaheb Mugale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Others
AND
613 WRIT PETITION NO. 1372 OF 2024
Shaikh Ahmad Shaikh Usman
VERSUS
Commissioner Maharashtra State Council Of Examination Pune And
Others
AND
614 WRIT PETITION NO. 1375 OF 2024
Rangnath Ukharam Jadhav And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
AND
615 WRIT PETITION NO. 1376 OF 2024
Santosh Sundarrao Ghule
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Others
AND
616 WRIT PETITION NO. 1412 OF 2024
Ashwini Suresh Shiledar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
Page No.89
TET (GROUP).doc
617 WRIT PETITION NO. 1413 OF 2024
Bhagyashree Suresh More
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary And Others
AND
618 WRIT PETITION NO. 1425 OF 2024
Rohini Madhukar Pawar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
619 WRIT PETITION NO. 2763 OF 2024
Punam Chatrabhuj Khande
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
620 WRIT PETITION NO. 3678 OF 2024
Shah Barfiwale Bilal Khajamiya And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
621 WRIT PETITION NO. 3679 OF 2024
Shital Biru Katkar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Principal Secretary And
Others
AND
622 WRIT PETITION NO. 3680 OF 2024
Sujata Shahaji Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Principal Secretary And
Others
AND
Page No.90
TET (GROUP).doc
623 WRIT PETITION NO. 3682 OF 2024
Pournima Harishchandra Bhoye And Ors
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary And Ors
AND
624 WRIT PETITION NO. 3868 OF 2024
Sagar Ramchandra Wagh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
625 WRIT PETITION NO. 4439 OF 2024
Bhagyashri Bhagwat Pawar And Ors
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary And Others
AND
626 WRIT PETITION NO. 6357 OF 2024
Raza Ullah Khan Zafar Ullah Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
627 WRIT PETITION NO. 7270 OF 2024
Roshani Baburao Bhoye
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
628 WRIT PETITION NO. 7316 OF 2024
Shaikh Intekhab Aalam Mohammad Rafique And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
629 WRIT PETITION NO. 7317 OF 2024
Tarannum Bano Md Ishaque Bagalkote
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
Page No.91
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
630 WRIT PETITION NO. 7318 OF 2024
Hina Tabassum Qaisar Parvez
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
631 WRIT PETITION NO. 7319 OF 2024
Aafreen Bano Ahemad Khan And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
632 WRIT PETITION NO. 7320 OF 2024
Ahmed Maulaali Hippargi
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
633 WRIT PETITION NO. 7321 OF 2024
Shah Parvez Ahmed Qayyum Shah
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
634 WRIT PETITION NO. 7769 OF 2024
Vinay Bhatu Jadhav
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
635 WRIT PETITION NO. 7827 OF 2024
Syed Aadil Ayyub
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
Page No.92
TET (GROUP).doc
636 WRIT PETITION NO. 7857 OF 2024
Arshad Khan Safdar Khan And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
637 WRIT PETITION NO. 7858 OF 2024
Momin Mohd Jahangeer Abdul Gafoor Quazi And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
638 WRIT PETITION NO. 8257 OF 2024
Israil Khan Ayyub Khan And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Chief Principal Secretary And
Others
AND
639 WRIT PETITION NO. 8459 OF 2024
Mohd. Javeed Iqbal Hussain
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
AND
640 WRIT PETITION NO. 8776 OF 2024
Shafeeque Ashraf Ali Chaugale And Others
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
641 WRIT PETITION NO. 9243 OF 2024
Mohammad Danish Mohammad Shakeel And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
Page No.93
TET (GROUP).doc
642 WRIT PETITION NO. 9624 OF 2024
Sunanda Sukhdeo Shinde Alias Sunita Bhaskar Jejurikar And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9630 OF 2024
Uzma Sadaf Zainuddin Shaikh And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9626 OF 2024
Vaishali Dhanaji Deore W/o Yogesh Y. Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9627 OF 2024
Shital Kailas Jadhav And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9628 OF 2024
Tejaswini Narayan Bahiram And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9631 OF 2024
Vidya Shantaram Kapadnis And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9625 OF 2024
Archana Dadaji Borse And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9629 OF 2024
Chaitali Popat Sasane And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
AND
Page No.94
TET (GROUP).doc
643 WRIT PETITION NO. 9676 OF 2024
Hina Kausar Mohammad Riyaz
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Chief Principal Secretary And
Others
AND
644 WRIT PETITION NO. 9677 OF 2024
Farooque Shah Latif Shah And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Chief Principal Secretary And
Others
AND
645 WRIT PETITION NO. 9716 OF 2024
Digvijay Dattatray Inamdar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
AND
646 WRIT PETITION NO. 10509 OF 2024
Lalita Umedrao Chavan Alias Lalita Dattatray Pingale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
647 WRIT PETITION NO. 10512 OF 2024
Vijay Devidas Bagul
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
648 WRIT PETITION NO. 10514 OF 2024
Dipali Gorakhrao Sonawane
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
649 WRIT PETITION NO. 10731 OF 2024
Page No.95
TET (GROUP).doc
Aakash Dattatrya Koparkar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
650 WRIT PETITION NO. 10834 OF 2024
Ganesh Satish Shete
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
651 WRIT PETITION NO. 10865 OF 2024
Harshada Magan Mote
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
652 WRIT PETITION NO. 10883 OF 2024
Sheetal Sukram Pawara
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
653 WRIT PETITION NO. 11146 OF 2024
Ashwini Sahebrao Samindre
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
654 WRIT PETITION NO. 11147 OF 2024
Sushila Sada Chaure And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
655 WRIT PETITION NO. 11564 OF 2024
Radha Bhatu Bhalkar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
Page No.96
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
656 WRIT PETITION NO. 12562 OF 2024
Sandip Kutrya Kokani
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And
Another
AND
657 WRIT PETITION NO. 12563 OF 2024
Shailendra Hiraman Kokani
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Its Principal Secretary And Another
AND
658 WRIT PETITION NO. 12565 OF 2024
Anil Raju Kokani
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And
Another
AND
659 WRIT PETITION NO. 12613 OF 2024
Vilsan Vikram Kokani
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And
Another
AND
660 WRIT PETITION NO. 12614 OF 2024
Nilesh Jalamsing Gavit
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And
Another
AND
661 WRIT PETITION NO. 12808 OF 2024
Manoj Aanaji Gawali And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
Page No.97
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
662 WRIT PETITION NO. 1700 OF 2025
Prafulla Suklal Kokani
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And
Another
AND
663 WRIT PETITION NO. 2038 OF 2025
Mirza Sameer Baig Mirza Altaf Baig
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Thr Education And Sports And Anr
AND
664 WRIT PETITION NO. 2039 OF 2025
Seema Motilal Kadave
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Thr Education And Sports And Ors
AND
665 WRIT PETITION NO. 2040 OF 2025
Vikas Sudhir Wankhede
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
AND
666 WRIT PETITION NO. 2041 OF 2025
Chetan Vijayrao Bijawe And Anr
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Thr Education And Sports Dept. And Ors
AND
667 WRIT PETITION NO. 2042 OF 2025
Ku. Dipali Samadhan Dawange
VERSUS
The Education Officer (secondary) Z.p. Buldana And Ors
AND
668 WRIT PETITION NO. 2043 OF 2025
Page No.98
TET (GROUP).doc
Vikrant Sanjay Khanderao
VERSUS
The Education Officer (secondary) Buldan And Ors
AND
669 WRIT PETITION NO. 2044 OF 2025
Ku. Tejaswini Bhushanrao Bangde
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary Department Of Education And
Sports And Ors
AND
670 WRIT PETITION NO. 2045 OF 2025
Durga Narayanrao Hore
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Thr Education And Sports And Ors
AND
671 WRIT PETITION NO. 2046 OF 2025
Ku. Monika Amardip Kharkar
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Thr Education And Sports And Ors
AND
672 WRIT PETITION NO. 2047 OF 2025
Mahesh Nanaji Karemore
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Thr Education And Sports And Ors
AND
673 WRIT PETITION NO. 2219 OF 2025
Vilas Pandit Gavit
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
AND
674 WRIT PETITION NO. 2271 OF 2025
Rani Sudam Gosavi Alias Pratibha Makarand Gosavi
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
Page No.99
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
675 WRIT PETITION NO. 3024 OF 2025
Arshee Anjum Mohd Wiqar Shaikh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
676 WRIT PETITION NO. 3197 OF 2025
Harichandra Barku Chaudhari And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Chief Principal Secretary And
Others
AND
677 WRIT PETITION NO. 5608 OF 2025
Punam Panditrao Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And
Another
AND
678 WRIT PETITION NO. 8915 OF 2025
Heena Kausar Abdul Sattar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8598 OF 2025
Kavita Nana Thakur Alias Dhanshree Kailas Thakur
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And
Another
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8913 OF 2025
Nupur Madhukar Deshmukh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretarya Nd Others
AND
Page No.100
TET (GROUP).doc
679 WRIT PETITION NO. 9339 OF 2025
Sangita Pandurang Pawara Alias Sangita Makansin Pawara
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
680 WRIT PETITION NO. 1805 OF 2026
Archana Vinayak Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
AND
681 WRIT PETITION NO. 1813 OF 2026
Nana Uttam Karande
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
AND
682 WRIT PETITION NO. 9431 OF 2026
Uzma Nahid Abdul Sattar Shaikh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretry And Others
AND
683 WRIT PETITION NO. 9816 OF 2026
Anil Arvind Valvi And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others`
AND
685 WRIT PETITION NO. 11707 OF 2026
Aasiyabano Ghulamdastageer Ansari And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Secretary And Others
AND
686 WRIT PETITION NO. 11961 OF 2026
Laxman Sakharam Gavit And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Chief Principal Secretary And
Page No.101
TET (GROUP).doc
Others
AND
687 WRIT PETITION NO. 913 OF 2024
Ilyas Khan Nisar Khan Sikkalgar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
688 WRIT PETITION NO. 11102 OF 2024
Vijaya Dilip Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
AND
689 WRIT PETITION NO. 9304 OF 2025
Waahid Shah Gulab Shab
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
AND
690 WRIT PETITION NO. 10265 OF 2025
Atiya Kausar Shaikh Usmangani Khatik
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
AND
691 WRIT PETITION NO. 10735 OF 2025
Shaikh Afser Yunus
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
AND
692 WRIT PETITION NO. 100 OF 2023
Hemant Somnath Thakare And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
AND
Page No.102
TET (GROUP).doc
693 WRIT PETITION NO. 101 OF 2023
Parag Shaligaram Chaudhari And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
694 WRIT PETITION NO. 102 OF 2023
Vaishali Dadaso Shevate And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6123 OF 2024
IN WP/102/2023
Nirmala Santosh Ghule
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
AND
695 WRIT PETITION NO. 104 OF 2023
Sagar Mohan Rajbhoj And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
696 WRIT PETITION NO. 5439 OF 2023
Sachin Suresh Badole And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
697 WRIT PETITION NO. 10923 OF 2023
Jyoti Ashok Shirsat And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
AND
698 WRIT PETITION NO. 9872 OF 2022
Tanveer Shah Tafazzul Shah
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
Page No.103
TET (GROUP).doc
AND
699 WRIT PETITION NO. 11714 OF 2022
Shivkanta Murlidhar Biradar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
700 WRIT PETITION NO. 14113 OF 2023
Shaikh Tanveer Shaikh Habeeb
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
AND
701 WRIT PETITION NO. 62 OF 2026
Asma Ramzan Pathan And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
____________________________________________________________
Appearance :-
Advocate for the Petitioners :-
Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate, i/by Adv. S. R. Sapkal and Adv.
Priyanka Kale and Atharva D. Khedkar,
Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate i/by Adv. Ashwini
Navjyot Bandiwadekar,
Mr. Suresh S. Pakale, Senior Advocate i/by Ms. Malgaonkar Padmaja
U., Mr. Shinde Rahul Ashok, and Mr. Shankar M. Katkar,
Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukkh, Senior Advocate i/by Adv. Kunal Arvind
Kale,
Adv. A. M. Inamdar, Adv. A. R. Syed, Adv. Arvind Gopalrao Ambetkar,
Adv. Ateeque Mohd., Adv. Pralhad D. Bachate, Adv. K. D. Bade Patil,
Adv. D. S. Bagul, Adv. Harish S. Bali, Adv. Parag Vijay Barde, Adv.
Prashant S. Bhavake, Adv. Mahesh S. Bhosale, Adv. Sidheshwar N.
Biradar, Adv. Yogesh B. Bolkar, Adv. Shailesh P. Brahme, Adv. Chetan
G. Patil, Adv. Balaji S. Chondhekar, Adv. Ajit B. Chormal, Adv. D. J.
Choudhary, Adv. Digvijay R. Khapre, Adv. Pushkar A. Deshpande, Adv.
Deepak Sathe, Adv. Sanjeev Bapu Deore, Adv. Abhay G. Deshmukh,
Adv. S. S. Deshpande, Adv. Sachin Deshpande, Adv. Vivek J. Dhage,
Adv. Dhananjay Rananaware, Adv. R. B. Dhore, Adv. Vithal H. Dighe,
Page No.104
TET (GROUP).doc
Adv. Sushant V. Dixit, Adv. R. J. Godbole, Adv. G. J. Pahilwan, Adv.
Ganesh Asaram Gadhe, Adv. Shahaji B. Ghatol Patil, Adv. Girish S.
Rane, Adv. Ravi Balasaheb Gite, Adv. Bhaskar Parmeshwar Gonare,
Adv. Nikita N. Gore, Adv. Nitin S. Ingle, Adv. Kailas B. Jadhav, Adv.
Samadhan H. Jadhav, Adv. Rakesh Nemichandji Jain, Adv. Vishal S.
Kadam a/w. Ms. Pratiksha C. Kale, Adv. N. B. Kalwaghe, Adv. D. A.
Karnik, Adv. Ram D. Karode, Adv. Shankar M. Katkar, Adv. Shrirang
Katneshwarkar, Adv. Kazi S. S., Adv. Sabahat T. Kazi, Adv. Shrimant
Ravsaheb Kedar, Adv. Sameer Khan, Adv. Akshay D. Khot, Adv.
Pundlik S. Kochar, Adv. S. R. Kolhare, Adv. Sanjay Ramlal Kolhare,
Adv. Sanjay D. Kotkar, Adv. Gajanan K. Kshirsagar, Adv. Mukul S.
Kulkarni, Adv. Suvidh S. Kulkarni, Adv. Mandar G. Bagkar, Adv.
Lalitkumar S. Mahajan, Adv. Surekha P. Mahajan, Adv. Padmaja U.
Malgaonkar, Adv. Bhooshan R. Mandalik, Adv. Irfan D. Maniyar, Adv.
Khushbu Ghanashyam Marwadi, Adv. Umesh G. Mitkari, Adv. Ankush
N. Nagargoje, Adv. Girish K. Naik Thigle, Adv. Ramesh Vitthal
Naiknavare, Adv. P. S. Kshirsagar, Adv. Vilas S. Panpatte, Adv.
Vishalkumar S. Pardeshi, Adv. Paresh B. Patil (Borse), Adv. Jitendra
Vijay Patil, Adv. Prafullasing H. Patil, Adv. Prakashsing B. Patil, Adv.
Rohit Nitin Patil, Adv. Vikram Tanajirao Patil, Adv. Vinod Prakash
Patil, Adv. Pavan K. Raulkar, Adv. Ajay D. Pawar, Adv. Aniket
Bhausaheb Pawar, Adv. Vaibhav U. Pawar, Adv. Rahul R. Shelke, Adv.
Ritu P. Jog, Adv. Sachin B. Thorat, Adv. Amarnath S. Sakhare, Adv.
Vitthal G. Salgare, Adv. Mahendra N. Sandhyanshiv, Adv. D. V. Sapkal,
Adv. Sandip R. Sapkal, Adv. Majit S. Shaikh, Adv. Shivaji T. Shelke,
Adv. P. N. Shende, Adv. Rahul Ashok Shinde, Adv. Shrikrashna B.
Solanke, Adv. Rahul Rajendra Suryawanshi, Adv. Rajendra R.
Suryawanshi, Adv. Azizoddin R. Syed, Adv. G. R. Syed, Mr. Yadnesh V.
Dharmadhikari h/f. Adv. Ajay G. Talhar, Adv. Vikas B. Tapkir, Adv.
Sagar Tembekar, Adv. Vedika Thakare, Adv. Dhananjay B. Thoke, Adv.
Sambhaji Subhashrao Tope, Adv. Manish Purushottam Tripathi, Adv.
Tukaram M. Venjane, Adv. Vinod P. Sangvikar, Adv. Vishnu B. Madan,
Adv. Ramesh I. Wakade, Adv. Vijay Shivaji Wakale, Adv. S. S.
Wankhede, Adv. Yogesh C. Patil.
Page No.105
TET (GROUP).doc
Advocate for the Respondents :-
Adv. Anup R. Nikam for Commissioner, Maharashtra State
Examination Council, Pune, Adv. Abhijeet V. Thombre, Adv. Ashok
Janrao, Adv. Bhaskar Parmeshwar Gonare, Adv. B. S. Deshmukh, Adv.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Bagul, Adv. Rahul Bhagawantrao Bagul, Adv.
Mirza Mazhar Javed Baig, Adv. Ravi Raosaheb Bangar, Adv.
Bhausaheb B. Bhise, Adv. Pravin Dilip Biradar, Adv. Yogesh G.
Birajdar, Adv. Poonam V. Bodke Patil, Adv. Yogesh B. Bolkar, Adv.
Uttam Bajirao Bondar, Adv. Rupeshkumar C. Bora, Adv. Rakesh C.
Bramhankar, Adv. Vaishali S. Chaudhari, Adv. Ashish R. Dand, Adv.
Rajendra V. Dasalkar, Adv. Bhausaheb S. Deshmukh, Adv. Mahesh S.
Deshmukh, Adv. Vaibhav G. Deshmukh, Adv. Vijay Vasantrao
Deshmukh, Adv. Sadashiv N. Deve, Adv. Sadanand Sadashiv Deve,
Adv. Shantaram Ravji Dheple, Adv. Ranjit D. Gaikwad h/f. Adv. Dilip
Bodake, Adv. R. J. Godbole, Adv. Kamaloddin Nuruddin Farooqui,
Adv. Luqmaan Kaseem Farooqui, Adv. Pramod S. Gaikwad, Adv.
Praveen B. Gamot, Adv. Aniruddha B. Ghule, Adv. Girish S. Rane, Adv.
Umesh Babanrao Gite, Adv. Madhur A. Golegaonkar, Adv. Vivekanand
Vishwambhar Gujar, Adv. Subhas V. Gutte, Adv. Adinath B. Jagtap,
Adv. Akshay Subhash Jagtap, Adv. Manjusha S. Jagtap, Adv. Rakesh
Nemichandji Jain, Adv. Dhiraj R. Jethliya, Adv. Sandeep
Chandreshakhar Joshi, Adv. Nitin Shamrao Kadam for Zilla Parishad,
Nanded, Adv. Y. M. Khan, Adv. Abhinay D. Khot, Adv. Amol Ashok
Kokad, Adv. Pratik P. Kothari, Adv. Bhushan B. Kulkarni, Adv. Girish N.
Kulkarni (Mardikar), Adv. Mukul S. Kulkarni, Adv. S. S. Kulkarni, Adv.
Supriya Kulkarni, Adv. Sachin Vijay Kuptekar, Adv. Manjushri V.
Narwade, Adv. Datta A. Madake, Adv. Lalitkumar S. Mahajan, Adv.
Milind S. Mahajan, Adv. Sunil B. Jadhav, Adv. Uday S. Malte, Adv.
Satish S. Manale, Adv. V. M. Maney, Adv. Vivek J. Dhage, Adv. Irfan D.
Maniyar, Adv. Sachin B. Munde, Adv. Kartik D. Mundhe, Adv. Nikhil S.
Tekale, Adv. Ankush N. Nagargoje, Adv. Prashant R. Nangare, Adv.
Sharad V. Natu, Adv. Ramchandra J. Nirmal, Adv. Prashant D.
Suryawanshi, Adv. Vilas S. Panpatte, Adv. Amol N. Patale, Adv.
Azaroddin Chandpasha Pathan, Adv. Hanmant V. Patil, Adv. Jitendra
Vijay Patil, Adv. Nayana P. Patil, Adv. Pravin Shamrao Patil, Adv.
Swapnil S. Patil, Adv. Ajay D. Pawar, Adv. Pravin N. Kalani, Adv.
Santosh Baburao Pulkundwar, Adv. S. R. Yadav-Lonikar, Adv. S. S.
Page No.106
TET (GROUP).doc
Randive, Adv. Ashwin V. Sakolkar, Adv. Milind B. Sandanshiv, Adv.
Amol Shivajirao Sawant, Adv. U. A. Sayyed, Adv. Umair Pasha A.
Quader Sayyed, Adv. Jayant Ramanlal Shah, Adv. Shahaji K. Shinde,
Adv. Nasimoddin R. Shaikh, Adv. Tarek Mobin H. Shaikh, Adv.
Avishkar S. Shelke, Adv. Bhagwat Achutrao Shinde, Adv. Kishor T.
Shirrurkar, Adv. Shrishail Sakhare, Adv. Aditya N. Sikchi, Adv. V. R.
Patil, Adv. Maheshkumar S. Sonawane, Adv. Sunil S. Shinde, Adv.
Gauri Shelke, Adv. Prashant V. Suryawanshi, Adv. Masood Chand
Syed, Adv. Ajay G. Talhar, Adv. Pradeepkumar R. Tandale, Adv.
Bhagwan V. Thombre, Adv. Yogita S. Thorat, Adv. Sushilkumar H.
Tripathi, Adv. Hrishikesh V. Tungar, Adv. Dinesh L. Vakil, Adv.
Laharimanohar D. Vakil, Adv. Vikrant S. Valse, Adv. Vinod M. Vibhute,
Adv. Pratap B. Vikhe, Adv. Vivek Vasantrao Bhavthankar, Adv.
Shrinivas S. Wagh, Adv. Santosh R. Yadav, Adv. S. R. Yamani, Adv.
Roshan S. Sawant, Adv. Monish R. Ghavri.
Advocate/AGP’s for the Respondent - State :-
Mr. V. D. Hon, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. P. S. Patil, Addl.GP., Mr. P. K.
Lakhotiya, Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, Mr. R. S. Wani, Mr. S. R. Yadav-
Lonikar, Mr. K. N. Lokhande, Mr. N. S. Tekale, AGPs
_____________________________________________________________
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026
JUDGMENT :- (Per - Jitendra Jain, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent taken up
for final hearing. This group of matters is transferred from the
Principal Seat and other Benches of this Court to the Aurangabad
Bench since all the petitions raises common challenge. The notice of
Page No.107
TET (GROUP).doc
hearing of these petitions was circulated to all the Benches so that all
counsel can be heard.
2. This petition relates to cancellation of results of the
petitioners, who appeared for the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET),
which is mandatory for teaching students of Standards I to VIII. The
results were cancelled on account of malpractices whereby the mark-
sheets of the candidates were altered by recording marks higher than
the marks actually obtained. For example, if A has secured 40 marks,
the mark sheet was altered to show that A has secured 60 marks.
Before we proceed, it is important to narrate the role of a teacher in
the life of a student and more particularly that of a teacher teaching
primary school students.
Role of a Teacher :-
3. Former President (Late) Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam observed:
“The purpose of education is to make good human beings with skill
and expertise... Enlightened human beings can be created by
teachers.” Mustafa Kemal Atatürk said: “A good teacher is like a
candle—it consumes itself to light the way for others.”
4. It is said that it takes a big heart to help shape little minds.
A teacher does not simply teach but inspires and changes the lives of
future generations. The role of a teacher is significant and critical in
Page No.108
TET (GROUP).doc
training the young minds of students to think critically. Teachers are
one of the foundational pillars of the society. They play important
role to shape not just young minds but also future citizens by
imparting knowledge, fostering critical thinking, instilling discipline
and integrity, encouraging curiosity, and acting as role models and
guides.
5. This great country is blessed with teachers like Mr. Jeevan
Mithari who treks 5 km to reach a place – Kavaltek Dhangarwada,
where only 3 families stay and in which there are only 2 girl students.
It is the zeal and the spirit of such a teacher for training the young
minds and future generation of this country that we are fortunate to
have such teachers even in an environment full of material
competition.
6. We appreciate the efforts put in by the teachers of this
Country by teaching and training not only the young minds but at
times are entrusted with many non-teaching jobs like deployment
during election period, census etc. We are also conscious of the fact
that in rural areas it is a challenging task for a teacher to teach with
the limited infrastructure and resources of the school. Despite of such
challenges, the teachers of this country render a great service by
discharging their duties tirelessly with love and affection. We take
Page No.109
TET (GROUP).doc
this opportunity to pay our respects to such teachers of this country.
7. We are perturbed by the issues raised in these petitions which
we are called upon to adjudicate since it deals with tampering of
marks of exams meant for teachers.
Challenge Raised :-
8. This group of writ petitions is filed by petitioners who are
either teaching in primary or secondary schools or are lecturers in
junior colleges or are teachers in schools managed by minority
institutions and by individuals aspiring to take up a job as teacher for
teaching students of Standards I to VIII. Some of the petitioners,
though not in service as teachers, but aspiring to be teachers
appeared for the exam since TET exam is made compulsory for
teaching students of Standards I to VIII The challenge is to the orders
dated 10 June 2022, 3 August 2022, 18 August 2022 and 14 October
2022 leading to freezing of Shalarth ID, withholding of salaries etc.,
consequent to the results of around 7,874 candidates who appeared
for Teachers Eligibility Test (TET – 2019) held on 19 January 2020
which included present petitioners, were cancelled and these
candidates were permanently debarred from appearing in the said
exams. The malpractices were found in exams of TET – 2018 and
TET – 2019. For the sake of convenience and by consent of all the
Page No.110
TET (GROUP).doc
parties Writ Petition No.9430 of 2022 is taken as a lead matter.
Pleadings filed in this petition was agreed to be the basis for deciding
all these petitions.
Brief Facts :-
9. By Government Resolution dated 23 August 2013,
respondent no.1-State made TET exams to be compulsorily to be
cleared by individuals for appointment of teachers for teaching in
Standard I to VIII, pursuant to Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE). The responsibility to conduct
the exam was entrusted under this GR to respondent no. 3 and 4 –
Council.
10. The above condition of clearing compulsory TET
examination was unsuccessfully challenged before this Court and
later on before the Apex Court.
11. On 7 November 2019, Council issued advertisement for
conducting online TET – 2019 exam. The process of filling up
application forms, allotment of seat number, declaration of result, etc.
was entirely online. The process of conducting the test was
outsourced to one G. A. Software Company. Pursuant to the said
advertisement, petitioners appeared for exam which was conducted
on 19 January 2020 and which coincided with the pandemic leading
Page No.111
TET (GROUP).doc
to ultimate lock-down of the World and in India from 20 March 2020.
The exam paper was in the form of multiple-choice questions (MCQ).
Carbon-copy of the answer sheet attempted was retained by the
candidates. Original copy was taken by the authority conducting the
exam and this copy was scanned and retained by the Council. The
candidates were later on furnished with model answers also. The
results of the test came to be declared online in August 2020 and
16,705 candidates out of more than 3,00,000 who appeared were
declared to have cleared the said test.
12. On 16 December 2021, respondent no.3-Chairman of the
Council lodged an FIR No. 56/2021 with regard to malpractices
practiced during the above exam which got surfaced while
investigation was being conducted by the police authorities with
regard to MHADA exam scam. In the said FIR, name of Mr. Pritesh
Deshmukh of G. A. Software and some officials of the Council figured
as being involved in the malpractices of altering the mark sheets. This
FIR was filed after continuous communications between the police
and the Council since the TET exam scam surfaced during ongoing
investigation of MHADA exams by the police authorities. The mark-
sheets of around 7,880 candidates came to be altered as per the said
FIR.
Page No.112
TET (GROUP).doc
13. Similarly, during the investigation with regard to the
MHADA examination, police authorities also got information of
tampering of marks with regard to the TET examination conducted in
the year 2018. In the 2018 TET examination, 17,349 candidates
appeared. 9,677 candidates cleared the examination, and it was
found out that around 1,700 mark-sheets were tampered with.
Respondent authorities, therefore, filed an FIR with the police
authorities bearing No. 58 of 2021.
14. On 10 June 2022, respondent -State addressed a letter to
the respondent - Council directing to hold an enquiry and complete
the same within 60 days. In the said letter, it is also stated that results
of 7,874 candidates out of successful 16,705 candidates were found
to be tampered in the TET 2019 exam. This letter also directs the
Council to levy appropriate penalty including permanently debarring
such individuals from appearing for the exam, to freeze Shalarth IDs
and salaries of such teachers and to direct employers to take
appropriate action due enquiry against the in-service teachers.
15. On 3 August 2022, respondent - Council after conducting
investigation passed impugned order holding that results of 7880
candidates were found to have been tampered with and these
candidates though failed were declared as passed or marks were
Page No.113
TET (GROUP).doc
increased. The order further states that in the absence of Executive
Committee, powers are being exercised by the Council. The order
debars 7,880 candidates permanently from appearing for the said
exam. Similar order was passed on 14 October 2022 in respect of
about 1,700 candidates who appeared for TET – 2018 exam.
16. It is on the above backdrop that the present petitions are
instituted across the State before the Principal and other benches of
this Court challenging the cancellation of the petitioners’ results of
TET – 2018 and TET – 2019 exams and permanently debarring them
from appearing for examination and further freezing their Shalarth
ID and their salaries. This Court by way of interim relief in lead
petition on 20 September 2022 directed the services of the petitioners
to be continued and also ordered salaries to be paid. We are informed
that similar interim orders were passed in other petitions also.
Brief submissions of Mr. Sapkal, Senior Counsel in Writ Petition
No.9430 of 2022 :-
17. Mr. Sapkal, learned senior counsel opening for the
petitioners submitted that before imposing a permanent bar on the
petitioners to appear for exams, principle of natural justice was not
followed. No show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners before
levying such a harsh penalty nor any opportunity of hearing was
Page No.114
TET (GROUP).doc
accorded. He, therefore, submitted that on this ground itself, the
impugned orders should be set aside and quashed. He further
submitted that the Maharashtra State Council of Examination Duties
and Powers of Chairperson, Regional Chairperson, Assistant
Commissioner and Conditions of Service of Employees Regulations,
2010 (2010 Regulations) does not empower the Commissioner to
impose such a penalty nor such a harsh penalty is provided for in the
Regulations. It is his submission that if the statute provides for a
particular authority to act, then it is that very authority who should
exercise the power and not any superior authority. He further
submitted that it is an admitted fact that the original records have
been destroyed and if that be so, then the present proceedings have
been initiated at the behest of the police authorities and the State and
not by the concerned authorities who were forced to act under the
Act. He submits that the impugned order is based on suspicion and
surmises and no charge-sheet has been filed against any of the
petitioners. He submitted that there is no material for cancellation of
result and imposing such a penalty.
18. Learned senior counsel relied upon Regulations 8, 11 and
13 of Part II Chapter V of the 2010 Regulations in support of his
submission that the present orders are passed without jurisdiction
Page No.115
TET (GROUP).doc
and, therefore, are required to be quashed and set aside since
Examination Committee has not passed the impugned orders.
19. He further submitted that the present order is made
applicable even to the candidates of Minority Institutions, Junior
Lecturers and Teachers of Standard IX and X class and who only
appeared for examination for better prospects. He submitted that the
said test was not required for these petitioners and, therefore, the
impugned orders passed against them are bad in law. He also
submitted that in the meantime many of the petitioners have
qualified by clearing CTET exam equivalent to TET but the penalty
imposed may come in their way to continue in service.
20. Learned senior counsel relied upon following decisions in
support of his above submissions :-
i) Chandrika Jha vs. State of Bihar & Ors.1
ii) Vijay Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors.2
iii) The Joint Action Committee of Airlines Pilots
Associations of India & Ors. vs. The Director General of
Civil Aviation & Ors.3
21. He, therefore, prayed for quashing of the impugned orders
by allowing the petition.
1 AIR 1984 SC 322
2 AIR 2012 SC 2840
3 AIR 2011 SC 2220
Page No.116
TET (GROUP).doc
Summary of written submissions filed by learned counsel Mr. Vilas
Panpatte on behalf of petitioners in Writ Petition No.9582 of 2022 &
other petitions and who later on also addressed the Court :-
22. Mr. Panpatte, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ
Petition No.9582 of 2022 submitted that the petitioners have
completed more than 12 years of service from the date of their
appointment and have successfully completed probation period and
have been granted the status of permanent employees under the
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act). It is his submission that if today
their names are not included in Shalarth ID and they are made to
work without payment, then it will result into unemployment and
would be contrary to Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of
India. He submitted that as per Section 23 read with Rule 19(2) of
the Right to Education Rules, 9 chances are given for acquiring
additional qualification of TET.
23. He further submitted that petitioners are being penalised
for no fault of theirs. He further submitted that any order passed
contrary to principles of natural justice are illegal and bad in law and
in any case the punishment cannot be disproportionate. He submitted
that time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has protected the
services of the teachers who have been working for a long period and
Page No.117
TET (GROUP).doc
has further time has been given for clearing TET exam. This would
also ensure continuity in elementary education of children. He
submitted that the petitioners have not been named in the FIR nor
any statement is recorded nor any kind of inquiry has been made
which will implicate the petitioners in the alleged malpractices.
24. Alternatively, he submitted that the impugned performance
of the petitioners should be discarded and an opportunity should be
given to appear for the TET exam in future. He submitted that if the
petitions are not allowed then many schools would be closed for
want of teachers and the teachers would become unemployed,
though having served for more than 12 years. He also submitted that
condition of TET exam is not applicable to minority institution.
25. Mr. Panpatte, learned counsel relied upon following
decisions in support his above submissions :-
(a) Dr. M. S. Mudhol & Anr. vs. Shri S. D. Halegkar & Ors.4
(b)Pandurang Narayan Kanekar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.5
(c) B. C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India & Ors.6
(d) Nidhi Kaim vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.7
(e) State of U.P. vs. Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust & Ors.8
4 1993 II CLR 389
5 2022 (3) Mh.L.J.687
6 AIR 1996 SC 484
7 (2016) 7 SCC 615
8 Review Petition No.53434 of 2025 dated 29.05.2026
Page No.118
TET (GROUP).doc
26. In view of above, he submitted that the petition may be
allowed in terms of prayer clauses mentioned in the petitions.
Submission of Mr. Bandiwadekar, Senior Counsel in Writ Petition No.
209 of 2023 & others :-
27. Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned senior counsel submitted that in
the impugned order dated 3 August 2022, reference has been made
to 11 documents which were never confronted with to the petitioners
before passing the impugned order. He submitted that the impugned
order has been passed without complying with the basic principles of
natural justice. Out of 11 documents referred to in the impugned
order, documents at item nos. 3 to 11 are annexed with the reply of
the contesting respondent no. 2. The petitioners, therefore, amended
the petition to challenge the resolution referred to in the impugned
order, which formed the basis for passing the impugned order.
28. Learned senior counsel further submitted that none of the
candidates / petitioners has been made accused or witness nor has
any inquiry made from them in the criminal proceedings referred to
in paragraph no. 1 of the impugned order. He submitted that out of
more than 3,00,000 candidates who had appeared, there were 7,880
candidates against whom complaints were made. Verification of
papers was done only in respect of these 7,880 candidates and all of
Page No.119
TET (GROUP).doc
them have been declared unsuccessful. He submitted that the
impugned order is passed without due application of mind, since it
has been passed without referring to the correct legal provisions.
There is a reference to Section 8 Chapter V of the Maharashtra State
Council of Examinations Act 1998 (1998 Act), whereas no such
reference can be found in the said Act and can only be found in 2010
Regulation, indicating clear non-application of mind by the
authorities.
29. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, referred to certain
provisions of the 1998 Act and submitted that as per Section 18, the
State Council shall constitute various committees, namely, Academic
Committee, Executive Committee, Finance Committee and
Examination Committee. Referring to Section 23 of the said Act, he
submitted that powers and duties of the State Council includes power
to conduct examination and to award certificates to candidates
passing various examinations and to make regulations for purpose of
carrying into effect the provisions of the 1998 Act. He further
referred to Section 37 which empowers the State Council to make
regulations. He submitted that none of the provisions of the 1998 Act
empower the State Council to cancel the examination result and to
impose penalty.
Page No.120
TET (GROUP).doc
30. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, referred to the
Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices at University, Board and
Other Specified Examination Act, 1982 which is referred in the
impugned order dated 3 August 2022. He submitted that TET
examination is not notified as examination under Section 2(b) of the
said Act. He further made reference to Sections 7 and 8 of the
aforesaid Act which provides for punishment only on conviction. He
submitted that in the present case, no criminal proceedings are
initiated against the petitioner and, therefore, reliance on these
provisions in the impugned order is illegal.
31. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, referred to 2010
Regulations and more particularly, Chapter V of Part II which deals
with the duties and powers of Chairperson, Commissioner, Regional
Chairperson, Assistant Commissioner and Working Committees
Regulations. He referred to Chapter V which deals with committees
of the State Council. As per regulation 8(2) of said Chapter V, duties
and functions of the Executive Committee are prescribed. Sub-clause
(t) of the said Regulation provides for laying down the procedure and
specifying the penalties to be imposed by the State Council. He
submitted that no such procedure has been laid, neither has the
penalty been specified. He further submitted that even this
Page No.121
TET (GROUP).doc
Regulation only provides for laying down the procedure and
specifying the penalty and not to cancel the examination and impose
the penalty. Learned senior counsel submitted that in the absence of
any procedure being laid down and specifying the penalty by the
Executive Committee, the impugned orders permanently debarring
the petitioners from appearing in examination is without jurisdiction.
32. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, brought to our attention
letter dated 8 February 2022 of the Council wherein the Expert
Committee of 6 members was formed for examining the results of
these 7,880 candidates. He submitted that the committee gave its
report on 14 February 2022, within 6 days, stating that the results of
7,880 candidates are tainted. The report further states that the
verification was done by the clerk. He, therefore, submitted that the
expert committee has merely signed the report without verifying and,
therefore, it has no evidentiary value. He submitted that clerks would
not have any expertise on the questions and answers which are
required to be verified and, therefore, the report prepared on the
basis of the verification done by such clerks has to be discarded.
33. Learned senior counsel further submitted that time and
again the State directed the Council to lay down a procedure and,
thereafter, take action for levying penalty. However, by resolution
Page No.122
TET (GROUP).doc
dated 24 June 2022 straightaway it was resolved to cancel the
performance of these candidates and permanently debars them from
appearing in the examinations. He submitted that the impugned
orders are passed contrary to the directions of the State which is not
in conformity with the powers of the Executive committee to lay
down the procedure and specifying the penalty. In the absence of any
procedure or penalty specified therein, the impugned orders are bad
in law.
34. Learned senior counsel relied upon the decision of 5 Judge
Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Board of High
School and Intermediate Education U.P. Allahabad V. Ghanshyam Das
Gupta and others9 and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court
was concerned with similar provisions under the U.P. Act and was
dealing with the cancellation of results and debarment of the
candidates from appearing in the examination. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that such an order without following the principles of
natural justice is bad in law. He submitted, by relying on this
decision, that the impugned orders insofar as it cancels the
performance of the petitioners and also permanently debars, is
contrary to the said decision and, therefore, has to be quashed and
set aside.
9 1962 SCC OnLine SC 94
Page No.123
TET (GROUP).doc
35. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, relied upon the decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Cellular vs. Union of
India10 and more particularly, paragraph nos.68 to 78 and 83, thereof,
to explain the scope of judicial review in such matters. He submitted
relying on these paragraphs that this Court should exercise its
jurisdiction since the decision-making process is flawed on account of
the breach of principle of natural justice and authority exceeding its
powers arbitrarily and improperly.
36. Learned senior counsel made his submission on the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nidhi Kaim
(supra) which is relied upon in the reply filed by the State and the
Council. He submitted that this decision does not have any
precedential value since on account of divergence of opinion
expressed by both the learned Judges, the matter was referred for
appropriate orders before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and till
today, there is no final order passed in this case.
Submissions of Mr. Bhavake appearing in Writ Petition No.5421 of
2023 and others :-
37. Mr. Bhavake, learned counsel adopted the arguments of
learned senior counsel Mr. Bandiwadekar. He further submitted that
in this petition and similar other petitions, the salaries and Shalarth
10 (1994) 6 SCC 651
Page No.124
TET (GROUP).doc
IDs have been frozen by the impugned orders dated 17 August 2022
and 3 August 2022. He submitted that as per the Government
Resolution dated 10 June 2022, there is a procedure prescribed for
freezing of Shalarth IDs which are found to have been obtained by
fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of facts. He submitted that
the procedure prescribed in this Government Resolution has not been
followed. He further relied upon the decision of Kolhapur Circuit
Bench in the case of Shaikh Akbar Nabilal vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others11 wherein in paragraph nos. 18 and 19, it is
observed that non-compliance of clause nos. 3.1 and 3.2 of the
Government Resolution dated 10 June 2022 would lead to quashing
of any action taken contrary thereto. He, therefore submitted that
the impugned order dated 17 August 2022 inasmuch as it freezes the
salary and Shalarth ID of the petitioners whose names are in the list
of 7,880 candidates whose performance is cancelled, is bad in law.
Submissions of Mr. Pawar appearing in Writ Petition No.4203/2023 :-
38. Mr. Pawar, learned counsel appearing in Writ Petition No.
4203 of 2023 has adopted the arguments made by Mr. Bandiwadekar,
learned senior counsel and further submitted that pending the
present petition, majority of teachers have cleared the TET/CTET
examination. He submitted that no benefit has been obtained on the
11 Writ Petition No. 9315 of 2024 dated 06.04.2026
Page No.125
TET (GROUP).doc
basis of the TET examination. He further submitted that teachers
have spent around 12-13 years and their performance may be
cancelled but they should not be prevented from appearing in future
examinations.
Summary of Written Submissions of Mr. Ram Karode in Writ Petition
No.7401 of 2023 and other petitions :-
39. Mr. Karode, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that, in some of his matters, salary and promotions have been
stopped on account of the impugned proceedings/orders. He further
submitted that, in the meanwhile, some of the candidates have
passed CTET examination and some of them are working with
minority institutions to whom TET examination was not compulsory.
He submitted that, on account of permanent debarment, the
petitioners are facing great hardship and are without any
employment. Some of the petitioners are working without salary.
40. He submitted that none of the petitioners are named in the
FIR and the charge-sheet. He further referred to the Government
Resolution dated 23 August 2013, in which it is stated that if some
irregularity is found, then the officials of the State Council will be
held responsible for criminal prosecution. Drawing support from the
said Government Resolution, he submitted that the petitioners cannot
Page No.126
TET (GROUP).doc
be penalised on account of tampering of the marks at the end of the
authorities conducting the examination. He submitted that if the
petitioners have acquired CTET qualification, which is equivalent to
TET, then their services should be protected. He submitted that the
punishment of permanently debarring the petitioners from appearing
in future TET examination is without authority of law and, further,
the principles of natural justice have been violated, which vitiates the
impugned orders. Alternatively, he submitted that the punishment of
permanent debarment is harsh and, at the most, the punishment of
debarment should be for 1 to 3 years. Mr. Karode relied upon
decision of the Principal Bench of this Court in the case of Sagar
Dattatray Chorghe vs. State of Maharashtra12.
Submissions of counsel Mr. Rahul Shinde appearing in Writ Petition
No.8460 of 2023 and other petitions :-
41. The submissions of Mr. Shinde are on the same lines as
those of Mr. Karode and other counsel. He, therefore, prayed for
allowing the petition and quashing the impugned order.
Submission of Mr. Pakale, senior counsel in Writ Petition No.106 of
2023 and other petitions :-
42. Mr. Pakale, learned senior counsel submitted that two
12 Writ Petition No. 7943 of 2024 dated 11 September 2025
Page No.127
TET (GROUP).doc
punishments have been imposed by the respondents on the
petitioners. Cancellation of the performance is the first punishment
and, permanent debarment is the second punishment. He submitted
that the respondents have adopted a very casual approach, without
application of mind and by flouting the principles of natural justice,
before imposing such punishment which deprives the petitioners of
their livelihoods, and the same is in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g)
and 21 of the Constitution of India.
43. Learned senior counsel submitted that, the impugned order
dated 3 August 2022, is bereft of any reason. He submitted that there
is no factual foundation in the impugned order with respect to at
least some of the candidates and, therefore, the impugned order is
more in the nature of a declaratory order and not teacher-specific. He
submitted that there is no foundation in the impugned order, except
some proceedings regarding the MHADA examination scam. The
present proceedings have been taken without mentioning in the
impugned order as to what was the material before the authority
before passing the impugned order. He submitted that, except the
MHADA scam, there is no foundation for imposing, or for passing the
impugned order in the case of the petitioners who appeared for the
TET examination. He submitted that a common order is passed by
Page No.128
TET (GROUP).doc
treating 7,880 candidates as one group. He submitted that the
impugned order dated 3 August 2022 only makes bald and vague
statements with regard to the allegations, without any factual
particulars with respect to, if not all, at least some of the candidates.
He submitted that, in the impugned order, it is stated that no notice is
required for cancellation and imposing punishment, which is contrary
to law.
44. He submitted that the whole exercise leading to the
impugned order is without authority of law. He submitted that
neither in the 1998 Act nor in the 2010 Regulations there is any
provision specifying the penalty and the procedure to be followed
before imposing the penalty, and, in the absence of any penalty being
prescribed, the impugned order is without jurisdiction and authority
of law. Learned senior counsel vehemently attacked replies filed by
the respondent-State and Council in lead Writ Petition No.9430 of
2022.
45. He further submitted that there is no delegation of power
to the Executive Committee to take the decision, nor any material is
placed on record to show that there has been any actual delegation
for imposing such penalty. He further submitted that the impugned
order is passed ex-parte and is, therefore, in violation of the
Page No.129
TET (GROUP).doc
principles of natural justice.
46. He submitted that the resolution on the basis of which the
impugned order is passed is also without any authority of law and the
same is a nullity. He submitted that there was no decision taken, but
only a recommendation made by the Committee. He referred to the
resolution dated 11 May 2022 and various other documents annexed
to the affidavit-in-reply of one Mr. Sharad Gosavi, Director of
Education filed in lead petition, to press his point that the
respondents themselves have admitted that there was no penalty
prescribed. He submitted that, based on this admission itself, penalty
imposed is required to be quashed and set aside. He submitted that
cancellation of the results itself is a penalty and, even for the
cancellation, there is no power given. He, therefore, submitted that
the impugned action is required to be quashed and set aside.
47. Learned senior counsel, referred to Clause 2 of Rule 1 of
2010 Regulation which is referred to in the reply of the respondents
in lead petition, and submitted that it applies only to employees of
the State and Regional Councils and not to petitioner candidates.
There is no provision to take action against the candidates since these
regulations do not cover them. He, therefore, submitted that the
impugned order is without authority of law.
Page No.130
TET (GROUP).doc
48. Learned senior counsel further submitted that it is settled
position that an order has to stand on its own legs and it should
speak for itself. In the impugned order, there are no reasons given,
there is no factual foundation nor any affidavits are filed supplying
the documents on the basis of which the impugned order is passed.
He, therefore, submits that such a non-reasoned and non-speaking
order has to fall down. He further submitted that since nothing has
been produced, it should be inferred that there is no such material on
the basis of which the impugned order is passed. He submitted that
the report referred to in the resolution is also not brought on record
and therefore, there are strong reasons to believe that order is not
based on any report, but at the behest of some unknown authorities
or higher authorities.
49. He submitted that in the affidavit of Mr. Gosavi,
respondents have stated that they have relied on the
provisions/regulation of Maharashtra Public Services Commission
(MPSC) for imposing the penalty. He submitted that this itself shows
that there are no regulations under the Maharashtra State Council of
Examination Act, nor there are provisions in 2010 Regulation. He,
therefore, submitted that the impugned order is required to be set
aside.
Page No.131
TET (GROUP).doc
50. Learned senior counsel further referred to communication
between the State to the Commissioner, Maharashtra State
Examination Council, dated 10th June 2022, whereby the State
directed the action to be taken against the candidates including
permanent debarring them from appearing for examinations. He
therefore submitted that the action is taken at the behest of the State.
Learned senior counsel has also filed written submissions, the gist of
which is already recorded by us above.
51. Learned senior counsel relied upon following decisions in
support of his above submissions and prayed for allowing the petition
in terms of prayer clauses mentioned therein.
a) State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors.13
b) State of Gujrat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Ors.14
c) Nidhi Kaim (supra)
d) Delhi Development Authority vs. Bhim Sain Goel and Ors.15
e) D K Yadav vs. JM Industries Limited16
f) Kuldeep Kumar Pathak vs. State of UP and Ors.17
g) Chishti Farhanuddin Qaiseruddin Chishti vs. State of Maharashtra &
Ors.18
h) Narayan Dodhu Chaudhary vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.19
13 2023 (6) SCC 1
14 2005 (8) SCC 534
15 (2022) 17 SCC 580
16 1993 AIR (SCW) 1995
17 2016 (3) SCC 521
18 2016 (5) MhLJ 280
19 2005 (3) MhLJ 693
Page No.132
TET (GROUP).doc
i) Nepal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh20
j) Krishna Mohan Medical College and Hospital & Anr vs. Union of
India and Anrs.21
k) Radhey Shaym Gupta vs. UP State Agro Industries Corp. Ltd.22
l) Board of High School and Intermediate Education, UP vs.
Bagleshwar Prasad23
m) Vijay Singh (Supra)
n) Vanshika Yadav vs. Union of India & Ors.24
o) Devidas Bhanudas Toradmal vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.25
p) Rajkumar Dhakad vs. State of MP26
Submission of Mr. Syed, appearing in Writ Petition No.7316 of 2024:-
52. Mr. Syed, learned counsel submitted that because of the
impugned order the petitioners were debarred from appearing for
TAIT, CTET, etc. examinations. However, by intervention of this Court,
the petitioners participated in these examinations and ultimately,
they were given appointment orders since they had qualified
CTET/TAIT examinations. He submitted that the petitioners have not
claimed any benefit on the basis of the TET results. He further
submitted that the punishment of permanently debarring the
petitioners is coming in their way and may affect future prospects
20 1985 AIR (SC) 84
21 2017 (15) SCC 719
22 1999 (1) CurlR 489
23 1966 AIR (SC) 875
24 2024 INSC 568
25 2025(1) MhLJ 476
26 High Court of Madhya Pradesh M.CR.C. No. 16327 of 2022
Page No.133
TET (GROUP).doc
and the present job. He, therefore, submitted that the services of the
petitioners should be protected since they have not claimed any
benefit on the basis of the TET examination. He relied upon decision
of this Court in the case of Hina Kausar vs. State of Maharashtra27 and
Pandharinath Kanojia vs. State of Maharashtra28.
Submissions of Mr. Ghatol Patil, appearing in Writ Petition No.9676
of 2024 :-
53. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner in Writ Petition No.9676 of 2024, has annexed answer
sheet attempted by the petitioner and the model answers provided by
the respondent. He submitted that on a comparison of both, marks
obtained by her, is identical to the marks based on the model answers
given by the respondents. He, therefore, submitted that the case of
the petitioner does not fall in malpractices of tampering with the
marks and therefore, the petitioner’s name has been wrongly
included in the annexure to the impugned order. He submitted that
various applications were made for getting information on the basis
of which petitioner's name has been shown in the annexure to the
impugned order but the authorities have not given any information
on the ground that the FIR is filed on the subject matter. He,
therefore, submitted that this petitioner’s case is different and the
27 WP/8534/2023 dated 14 September 2023
28 WP/1269/2025 dated 25 March 2025
Page No.134
TET (GROUP).doc
petition deserves to be allowed on this ground itself.
54. All other counsel appearing for the petitioners have
adopted the submissions made by all the learned senior counsel and
other counsel and prayed for allowing the petitions.
Submissions of Mr. Hon, senior counsel for respondent-State :-
55. Mr. Hon, learned senior counsel relied upon paragraphs 27
and 28 of the order dated 11 June 2021 passed in Writ Petition
No.4940 of 2020, wherein the condition of compulsory TET was
challenged. He submitted that the rationale for making TET a
compulsory qualification for teaching young children was to bring
national standards and benchmarks of teacher quality into the
recruitment process, since these teachers would be moulding and
shaping the minds of young children. He submitted that this Court, in
paragraph 28, has observed that heavy responsibility would lie upon
the teachers to impart quality education to these young minds. It is in
this background that the action impugned in the present group of
petitions has to be tested by the Court. He further relied upon order
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 8 September 2026 in Writ
Petition (Civil) No.1102 of 2026, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has observed that no teacher shall be appointed in schools or colleges
unless they possess the requisite prescribed qualification.
Page No.135
TET (GROUP).doc
56. Learned senior counsel, on a query by the Court, stated that
generally, within two months of the examination, the final results are
declared. However, in the instant case, on account of COVID-19, the
results were declared in August 2020 and since model answers and
copies of answer sheet were with candidates, they knew what marks
they were going to get and taking advantage of lockdown,
malpractice came to be practised in collusion with officers of the
Council by altering only the marks.
57. Learned senior counsel brought to our attention the answer
sheets of the candidates who are petitioners in lead petition. He
submitted that as soon as the examination is over, a carbon copy of
the answer sheet is given to the candidates, and the original is taken
by the supervisor. The original is thereafter scanned and retained and
available even today. He submitted that after few days of the
examination, the candidates are also given model answer sheets so
that they can compare the answers with those attempted by them. He
submitted that based on the comparison between the answer sheets
attempted by the petitioners and the model answers, it was clear that
the actual marks obtained by the candidates were far less than what
was printed on the final mark-sheets. He submitted that none of the
petitioners have denied this, in spite of the respondents having made
Page No.136
TET (GROUP).doc
a specific plea in this regard in their reply and attached answer sheets
there with. He submitted that this would amount to admission of the
candidates having obtained more marks than what they actually
secured. He further called upon all the petitioners to come forward
and deny their answer sheets and model answers which would prove
whether respondents have given marks wrongly.
58. With regard to Writ Petition No.9676 of 2024, in the case of
Heena Kausar (supra), the marks as per the answer sheet of the
candidate was 82, whereas in the final mark sheet, it was printed as
84. Therefore, the name of this petitioner appeared in 7880
candidates whose marks were tampered with. He submitted that the
issue is not whether the difference was only two marks, but whether
the actual marks were different from those appearing in the final
marks sheet. He submitted that in competitive exams even a
difference of one mark can make huge difference.
59. Mr. Hon, learned senior counsel for the respondents,
submitted that after the issue of tampering was brought to the notice
of the respondents by the police authorities, and the police
authorities specifically stated that the marks of 7,880 candidates have
been tampered with, respondent-Council physically verified the
answer sheets of these 7,880 candidates for ascertaining the actual
Page No.137
TET (GROUP).doc
marks and compared the same with the marks printed on the mark
sheets. It is only thereafter that the results of 7,880 candidates were
cancelled.
60. Learned senior counsel further disputed the submissions
made by the petitioners that none of the petitioners have been
questioned by the police authorities. He submitted that the police
authorities have recorded the statements of various candidates and
the admissions made therein. He further submitted that this
malpractice was carried out by the officials of the respondent
Council, namely, Mr. Tukaram Namdeo Supe, who was holding dual
charge as a Commissioner of Maharashtra State Examination Council
as well as also President of Maharashtra State Examination Council
during the period when the fraud was committed. He submitted that
necessary criminal and disciplinary action have been initiated against
Mr. Supe by the respondents.
61. Learned senior counsel relied upon the guidelines for
conducting TET, wherein, in paragraph 12, it is specifically stated that
a serious view will be taken of any malpractice or impersonation by
or against a candidate.
62. Learned senior counsel submitted that the decision for
cancellation of results of 7,880 candidates was taken in the larger
Page No.138
TET (GROUP).doc
public and society interest since the State did not want young minds
to be trained by such teachers. He submitted that keeping in mind the
fundamental Right to Education, the decision in larger public interest
was taken. He submitted that between private interest and larger
public and society interest, it is the later which should prevail over
the former.
63. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, made submissions on
the reliefs sought in the petition. He submitted that the petitioners
have sought prayer to quash the communication dated 10 June 2022.
He submitted that as per this communication, the State had directed
the Council to conduct an enquiry with regard to the fraud and
inform the concerned schools about the candidates involved and,
after hearing them, to take appropriate action. In the meanwhile,
their salary and Shalarth - ID were frozen. He submitted that before
any inquiry could be initiated against these teachers, they
approached this Court and obtained interim orders, which prevented
the management and the respondents from initiating an inquiry
against the teachers. He submitted that the freezing of salary and
Shalarth - ID was only subject to the completion of the inquiry. He
submitted that under the interim orders, these teachers have been
paid their salaries. He submitted that the petitioners have delayed the
Page No.139
TET (GROUP).doc
conduct of the inquiry by the concerned authorities by obtaining
interim orders of this Court. He submitted that no mandamus could
be issued for quashing of the communication dated 10 June 2022. He
further submitted that the communication dated 10 June 2022
specifically stated that a hearing would be given before a final
decision was taken. He therefore submitted that the challenge to the
said communication is also premature.
64. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, brought to our attention
the communication dated 18 August 2022 addressed by the Council
to the Director of Education for freezing of salary and Shalarth - ID.
He submitted that the salary and Shalarth - ID of only 576 candidates
out of 7,880 have been frozen.
65. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the results of
7,880 candidates have been cancelled, but not all of them have
approached the Court. The number of candidates who have
approached the Court is much less. He submitted that the other
candidates have accepted the cancellation, which fortifies the action
of the respondents.
66. Learned senior counsel thereafter relied upon Section 26 of
the 1998 Act, which provides for powers of the Government to issue
directions. He submitted that the authorities under the Act work
Page No.140
TET (GROUP).doc
under the supervision of the State Government. He, therefore,
submitted that the directions issued by the State Government by
various communication to the Council were under Section 26 of the
said Act. Alternatively, he submitted that the directions are also in
pursuance of Article 162 of the Constitution of India.
67. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, drawing support from
the Government Resolution dated 12 October 1993, submitted that
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its judgment in the case of District
Collector vs. N. Tripura Sundaridevi29, has observed that a person
who obtains an appointment without possessing the qualification for
the post would amount to playing fraud, and no Court should be a
party to the perpetuation of such fraudulent practice. He further
stated that in the said Government Resolution, it is specifically
mentioned that, if the charges are proved in this regard, then the
government servant should be removed or dismissed from service. He
defended the impugned action by drawing support from this
Government Resolution.
68. Learned senior counsel referred to GR dated 31 st October
1996 with regards to caste certificate obtained by playing fraud. This
GR states that if any person employed with the State on the basis of a
caste certificate which is obtained by fraud, then appropriate action
29 (1990) 4 SLR 237
Page No.141
TET (GROUP).doc
will be taken including termination of his employment and
appropriate disciplinary action against him will also be taken. He,
relying upon this GR, submitted that the State Government does have
the power of terminating a government servant who has obtained the
service on the basis of a fraudulent document.
69. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, relied upon Sections 14,
18(1) and 18(2), 23(1)(a),(f), (p), (s) and (t) and the preamble of
the 1998 Act and submitted that the State and the Council have
enough power for cancellation of the performance of the candidates
and imposing the punishment. He also relied upon Section 35 of the
said Act which provides that the Council shall furnish to the
Government such reports, etc. as may be required by the Government
and such further information relating to any matter connected with
its work as the Government may call for and the Government after
considering such report, etc. may give appropriate direction
consistent with the Act as may be necessary and the Council shall
comply with such directions. He, therefore, submitted that the
respondent-State have acted within the powers conferred by the 1998
Act for issuing the impugned orders/communications.
70. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, submitted that in the
order dated 3 August 2022, there is a reference to 11 documents
Page No.142
TET (GROUP).doc
starting from 2019 up to the passing of the impugned order in 2022
which clearly demonstrates that the respondents have not acted in
haste but after completely verifying the information received from
the police authorities independently and after due consideration and
deliberation by the expert committee and the officials of the Council
and the State Government. He submitted that the reference to these
documents itself and on a reading of the impugned order it cannot be
said that the impugned order is without any reason.
71. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, submitted that a 6-
member Committee was formed and was entrusted to examine this
issue and the said Committee consisted of officials of high ranking
viz., Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Superintendent
etc., drawn from Council and education department. These are
competent officers and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was no
application of mind before taking the impugned action.
72. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, referred to letter dated
14 February 2022, annexed to the reply of respondents, addressed to
the Council by the Committee, wherein detailed report with respect
to verification of 7,880 answer sheet was made.
73. Learned senior counsel relied upon following decisions of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of his various submissions
Page No.143
TET (GROUP).doc
made herein above :-
FRAUD, ILLEGAL APPOINTMENTS
(i) District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare
Residential School Society, Vizianagaram & Anr. vs. M.
Tripura Sundari Devi 30
(ii) Central Bank of India vs. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahri &
Ors.31
(iii) Smriti Madan Kansagra vs. Perry Kansagra32
NATURAL JUSTICE FUTILE EXERCISE
(i) Dharampal Satyapal Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Central Excise, Gauhati & Ors.33
(ii) State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors.34
(iii) Union of India & Ors. vs. M. Bhaskaran35
ARTICLE 162
Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants And Residents
& Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.36
EXAMINATION MALPRACTICE/SCAM
(i) Nidhi Kaim (supra)
(ii) State of West Bengal vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee)
& Ors.37
PENDENCY OF ISSUE BEFORE LARGER BENCH
(i) Ashok Sadarangani & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.38
30 (1990) 3 SCC 655
31 (2008) 13 SCC 170
32 (2023) 20 SCC 517
33 (2015) 8 SCC 519
34 (2021) 19 SCC 706
35 1995 Supp (4) SCC 100
36 (2019) 8 SCC 607
37 (2025) 11 SCC 126
38 (2012) 11 SCC 321
Page No.144
TET (GROUP).doc
SUPERINTENDENCE OF POWERS
(i) Central Information Commission vs. DDA & Anr.39
SOURCE OF POWER NEED NOT BE MENTIONED
(i) Mahatama Gandhi Mission & Anr. vs. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena
& Ors.40
NO APPOINTMENTS WITHOUT TET
(i) Rajesh Chauhan & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.41
74. Learned senior counsel concluded by praying for dismissal
of these writ petitions and for taking strict and serious view of the
matter keeping in mind that these petitioners were to teach young
children.
Submissions of Mr. Nikam appearing for Council :-
75. Mr. Nikam, learned counsel appearing for Council adopted
submissions of Mr. Hon, senior counsel for State and submitted that
the officers involved in the scam comprised of officers of the Council,
Chairman, Directors and Vice President of GA Software Company,
Deputy Secretary of School Education Department and Technical
Advisor working in the office of Commissioner of Education. He
submitted that it was in connivance with these officers and the
candidates that the malpractice has been committed in the year 2018
39 (2024) 8 SCC 812
40 (2017) 4 SCC 449
41 Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s).1102/2026
Page No.145
TET (GROUP).doc
and 2019 since 2019 was the last attempt to clear the TET exam,
failing which the services of in-service teachers were to be
terminated. Therefore, according to him, the candidates sought to
achieve the success by unfair means.
76. Mr. Nikam further submitted that statements of the some of
the candidates have been recorded by the police authorities prior to
the impugned order dated 3 August 2022. Some of these candidates
whose statements were recorded have also filed petitions challenging
the impugned action but they have not disclosed in the petition that
their statements were recorded. He submitted that in these
statements, these candidates have admitted based on the model
answers and answer-sheet attempted by them that the marks are
different than the marks shown on the mark-sheet. Some of the
candidates have also admitted that they have paid cash for altering
the marks. It is his submission that the petitioners in Writ Petition
Nos.10879 of 2022, 9512 of 2022 and 9760 of 2023 have not
disclosed in the petitions that their statements have been recorded,
wherein they have admitted that there has been a change in their
marks but they have denied that they have made any payment for
doing so. It is his submission that these petitioners having not
disclosed in the petitions that their statements have been recorded by
Page No.146
TET (GROUP).doc
the police and thereby have played fraud on this Court by
suppressing material information and, therefore, these petitions
should be dismissed at the outset.
77. Mr. Nikam further submitted that from the above fact,
submission made by the petitioners that statements of none of the
candidates have been recorded is incorrect. He submitted that it was
only after the statements of some candidates were recorded and
detailed process was followed that the impugned order came to be
passed.
78. Mr. Nikam referring to the annexures filed with affidavit of
Ms. Shailaja submitted that right from 16 December 2021, the day
when the cyber police informed the Education Commissioner, the
Council took various steps namely filing of FIR, forming Committee,
physical verification of the marks and the OMR-sheet, submitting
report by the Committee, deliberations by the Committee, various
communications between the State and the Council that ultimately
the impugned order was passed.
79. He submitted that the impugned order dated 3 August 2022
contains various documents which clearly demonstrates that the
decision was not taken in haste and without application of mind but
by following detailed verification and investigation before passing
Page No.147
TET (GROUP).doc
the impugned order.
80. He submitted that none of the petitioners have come
forward to claim that the marks as per the model answers and the
answer-sheets attempted are same as those printed on the original
mark-sheet, inspite of the answer-sheets and model answers having
annexed with the reply to the Writ Petition No.9430 of 2022.
81. Mr. Nikam further submitted that 2018 TET exam results
were cancelled by order dated 14 October 2022 on same lines as that
of TET 2019 since malpractices were found even in that exam on the
same lines. The said order of 14 October 2022 is challenged in Writ
Petition No.14072 of 2023.
82. Mr. Nikam relied upon Regulation 8(2)(t) of Chapter V Part
II of 2010 Regulations and after pointing out various steps taken from
16 December 2021 till the passing of the order, sought to canvas the
conferment of powers for passing the impugned orders.
83. At this stage, the Court raised a query to Advocate Mr.
Panpatte as to why his client has not disclosed in the petition that his
statement has been recorded by the police authorities with regard to
the malpractice. Mr. Panpatte, learned advocate submitted that such
statement does not have any evidentiary value till it is proved and
therefore, the need to disclose was not felt. He defended the non-
Page No.148
TET (GROUP).doc
disclosure of such a statement in the petition. The Court further gave
an opportunity to the client of Mr. Panpatte and other petitioners for
filing an affidavit that such a statement was never recorded.
However, no such affidavit has been filed.
84. Mr. Nikam relied upon following decisions in support of his
above submissions and prayed for dismissal of the petitions with
costs.
(i) Chairman, J & K State Board of Education vs. Feyaz Ahmed
Malik & Ors.42
(ii) The Bihar School Examination Board vs. Subhas Chandra
Sinha & Ors.43
(iii) Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai & Ors.44
(iv) Dilip Jagannath Sarode & Ors. vs. Maharashtra Public
Service Commission & Ors.45
(v) State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Prabhu46
(vi) In Re: Dr. Ram Ashray Yaday, Chairman Bihar Public
Service Commission47
(vii) Om Kumar vs. Union of India48
(viii)Bank of India & Anr. vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar & Ors.49
(ix) M. Tripura Sundari Devi (supra)
(x) Chairman Board of Mining Examination and Chief
42 (2000) 3 SCC 59
43 (1970) 1 SCC 648
44 (2017) 13 SCC 621
45 2008 LJSoft (Bom) 856
46 (1994) 2 SCC 481
47 2000 DGLS (SC) 616
48 2000 DGLS (SC) 1643
49 (2005) 7 SCC 690
Page No.149
TET (GROUP).doc
Inspector of Mines vs. Ramjee50
(xi) Biswa Ranjan Sahoo & Ors. vs. Sushanta Kumar Dinda &
Ors.51
Rejoinder of Mr. Sapkal, Senior Counsel :-
85. Mr. Sapkal, learned senior counsel referring to the decision
in the case of Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors.52 submitted that by virtue of punishment, though
Hon’ble Supreme Court has extended the time to clear TET exam
upto the year 2028, petitioners would not be entitled to such an
extension. He also submits that such a punishment would be contrary
to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further submitted
that appointment of most of the petitioners was not illegal since at
the time of the appointment, there was no condition of clearing TET
exam. Such a condition came after their appointment was approved
by the appropriate authorities under the MEPS Act. He further
submitted that the GRs dated 12 October 1993 and 31 October 1996
relied upon by respondent-State are not applicable since the
petitioners are not in government service but in private service and
their service conditions are regulated by the MEPS Act and Rules.
50 1977 DGLS (SC) 72
51 (1996) 5 SCC 365
52 (2026) 7 SCC 690
Page No.150
TET (GROUP).doc
86. Learned senior counsel further referred to Sections 2(d),
2(g) and 2(l) of the 1998 Act and submitted that by virtue of GRs or
Regulations there cannot be cancellation of results and imposition of
punishment, since the scheme of the Act provides for the regulations
in this regard which are not in existence. He further submitted that
Section 14 of the 1998 Act is not applicable since the Committee
itself is not in existence. Learned senior counsel further pointed out
that provisions of Section 18 to form the Committees is mandatory
and in the absence of such Committees being formed, the impugned
orders are without jurisdiction. He further submitted that Section
18(2) cannot be pressed into service by the respondent-State since
the said provision is for constituting Committee for performance of its
functions and not for cancellation of results and imposition of
punishment.
87. He further referred to various provisions of Section 23 and
submitted that the State Council has to advise the Government on
policies relating to examination and not to receive the instructions
from the State Government. He further submits that there is no
power under Section 23 to cancel the results. He then submitted that
Section 35 which empowers the State to give direction to the Council
for necessary action is also not applicable in the instant case because
Page No.151
TET (GROUP).doc
such direction should be consistent with the Act and in the instant
case, the directions are not consistent with the Act. He further
submitted that provisions of Sections 37 and 38 are also not
applicable in the absence of any Committee which, under 2010
Regulations is empowered to conduct the enquiry and recommend
penalty in case of malpractice. He submitted that since the decision
making process is not in accordance with the 1998 Act and 2010
Regulation, the impugned orders have to be quashed.
88. Learned senior counsel referred to Regulations 8, 11 and 13
of 2010 Regulations and submitted that it is the Examination
Committee of the Regional Council which is supposed to enquire into
the complaints regarding the alleged leakage and malpractice and
such a Committee should report to the Standing Committee of
Regional Council at its next meeting. He submitted that this
procedure has not been followed before passing the impugned order.
He further submitted that under Regulation 11(2), duty of the
Examination Committee is to recommend Executive Committee on
the procedure to be followed and punishment to be imposed by the
Regional Council which again has not been complied with. He,
therefore, submitted that since 2010 Regulation requirements are not
complied with, the decision-making process is flawed and, therefore,
Page No.152
TET (GROUP).doc
the impugned orders are without jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law.
89. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, sought to distinguish the
decision relied upon by the State on the ground that those decisions
dealt with obtaining appointment by illegal means whereas in the
instant case there is no illegality pertaining to appointment. The
appointments have been approved under the MEPS Act and Rules.
The requirement of clearing TET exam came after the date of
appointment and, therefore, decisions would not be applicable. He
further submitted that reliance placed by the respondent-State on the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharampal
Satyapal Limited (supra) to dispense with natural justice principles
also would not be applicable in the instant case, since that would
amount to the authorities having pre-determined the action. He
submitted that severe prejudice is caused to the petitioners because
of impugned order.
90. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, sought to distinguish the
decision in the case of Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) (supra),
on the grounds of fairness, equity, etc., by submitting that
investigation has not been conducted in the instant case and there is
no proof to substantiate the allegations and, in any case, allegations
cannot substitute the proof.
Page No.153
TET (GROUP).doc
91. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Sapkal, therefore, prayed for
allowing the petitions in toto.
Rejoinder of Mr. Bandiwadekar, Senior Counsel :-
92. Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned senior counsel submitted that
the statement of the petitioners in petitions in which he is appearing
were not recorded by the police authorities. He further submitted
that the submission of the respondent-State that the petition is
premature is also not correct since by 3 August 2022, the petitioners
were permanently debarred from appearing for TET exam and their
performance was cancelled which resulted into their job being
terminated but were saved because of interim orders of this Court.
He submitted that because of 3 August 2022, submission made by
respondent-State on the basis of communication dated 10 June 2022
that the petition is premature is required to be rejected.
93. Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned senior counsel further
submitted that provisions of Section 26 of the 1998 Act cannot be
pressed into service for justifying the punishment since the said
section provides for framing of rules which was also the instructions
given by the State Government to the Council before imposing the
penalty. Admittedly, the State and the Council have not produced any
procedure or regulation or rules regarding imposition of penalty.
Page No.154
TET (GROUP).doc
94. Lastly, he submitted that Section 23(1)(t) does not
empower the authorities to terminate the employment and Shalarth
IDs since the said provision is only for the purposes of 1998 Act.
Rejoinder of Mr. Pakale, Senior Counsel :-
95. Mr. Pakale, learned senior counsel submitted that the State
has not made any submissions on blacklisting of the candidates
without giving any hearing. He further submitted that the State has
not filed any reply in his petition and, therefore, he is handicapped in
making the submissions in regard to the documents which are filed
with the reply in lead petition. Learned senior counsel fairly stated
that it is not his case that the Council does not have power to cancel
the performance but it is his case that the Council does not have the
power to blacklist the petitioners and that too, without complying
with the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that since
the appointments were prior to introduction of TET, cancellation of
performance would not result into termination of the service of the
petitioners appointed prior. He further submitted that in the absence
of compliance with Article 166 of the Constitution of India, impugned
actions cannot be justified by taking shelter under Article 162 of the
Constitution of India. He, therefore, concluded by submitting that
the petitions be allowed by quashing the impugned orders.
Page No.155
TET (GROUP).doc
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS :-
96. Before we proceed to address the issue, it is necessary to
analyse certain provisions of the 1998 Act which are relevant for the
purpose of the present decision.
97. Section 2(b) defines “Commissioner” to mean the
Commissioner of the Maharashtra State Council of Examinations
appointed under Section 20. Section 20 deals with the appointment,
powers and duties of the Commissioner of the Council. It provides
that the State Council shall have a Commissioner appointed by the
Government from amongst persons holding the post of Joint Director
of Education from the Maharashtra Education Service. The
Commissioner shall be wholly responsible for the design,
organization and conduct of examinations to be conducted by the
State Council. The Commissioner shall be the ex officio Chairperson
of the Examination Committee of the State Council. The
Commissioner shall be the Executive Officer of the State Council.
98. Section 2(c) defines “Council” to mean the State Council of
Examinations or a Regional Council established under Section 3.
Section 2(n) defines “State Council” to mean the Maharashtra State
Council of Examinations established under sub-section (1) of Section
3 of the Act. Section 3(1) provides that the Government shall, by
Page No.156
TET (GROUP).doc
notification in the Official Gazette, establish, for the purposes of this
Act for the whole State, a Council to be called the Maharashtra State
Council of Examinations. Section 4 provides that the State Council
will be a statutory autonomous body. Section 5(2) provides that the
Commissioner shall be the ex officio Member-Secretary of the State
Council, who shall be entitled to take part in all the deliberations and
proceedings of the meetings of the State Council, but shall have no
right to vote.
99. Section 14 provides that no act or proceeding of the State
Council or any Regional Council or any committee of a Council shall
be invalid merely by reason of any vacancy in, or any defect in the
constitution of such Council or Committee.
100. Section 18 provides that the State Council shall constitute
following committees, namely, Academic Committee, Executive
Committee, Finance Committee and Examination Committee and
such other Committees for the efficient performance of its functions.
101. Section 23(1)(f) provides that the State Council shall
conduct examinations and award certificates to the candidates
passing the various examinations. Section 23(1)(p) provides that the
State Council shall appoint such committees as it may think necessary
for the efficient discharge of its functions under this Act. Section
Page No.157
TET (GROUP).doc
23(2) provides that it shall be lawful for the Council to conduct the
examinations on the request of any authority, on contract basis and
on the terms and conditions approved by the Council. Section 23(1)
(t) provides for doing all acts and things necessary to carry out the
purposes of the Act.
102. Section 26 provides for the powers of the Government to
issue directions. Sub-section (1) provides that the Government shall
have the power to issue to the State Council or a Regional Council
such directions as it may consider necessary in regard to all or any of
the matters specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 23
and the Council concerned shall comply with such directions. Sub-
section (2) provides that the Government shall also have right to
address to the State Council or a Regional Council with reference to
anything it has conducted or done or is conducting or doing, or
intends to conduct or do, and to communicate to the Council
concerned its views in the matter. Sub-section (3) provides that the
Council shall report to the Government such action taken upon
receipt of the communication from the State Government and shall
furnish an explanation if it fails to take appropriate action. Sub-
section (4) provides that if the Council fails within a reasonable time
to act, then the Government may, after considering the representation
Page No.158
TET (GROUP).doc
or explanation furnished, issue directions which should be complied
with by the Council. Sub-section (5) deals with an emergency
situation which, in the opinion of the Government requires that
immediate action to be taken and the Government may take such
action, consistent with the Act, as it deems necessary, without
previous consultation with the Council concerned, and shall forthwith
inform it of the action taken.
103. Section 37(2) provides for powers of the State Council to
make regulations. It provides that the State Council may provide for
the constitution of various committees, the marks required for
passing in any subject, arrangements for conduct of examinations and
publication of results, the awarding certificates, etc.
104. It is also relevant to analyse the important provisions of the
2010 Regulations which are pressed into service by the parties. Part I
of the 2010 Regulations deals with conditions of service of
employees. We are not concerned with Part I and, therefore, the same
is not analysed herein.
105. Part II of the 2010 Regulations consists of various Chapters
which are relevant for the purposes of deciding the issue raised
herein.
Page No.159
TET (GROUP).doc
106. Chapter I of Part II deals with definitions. Regulation 1(2)
defines “Commissioner” to mean the Commissioner of the
Maharashtra State Council of Examinations. Regulation 1(8) defines
“examination” to mean all examinations conducted by the Council at
the end of such prescribed time schedule as may be determined in the
syllabi and all other examinations conducted by the Council on
contract basis on the terms and conditions approved by the Council.
Regulation 1(9) defines “examination on contract basis” to mean all
the scholastic, professional, entrance tests and other examinations
conducted by the Council on the request of any authority on the
terms and conditions approved by the Council, as specified under
Section 23(2) of the Act. Regulation 1(15) defines “specified
examination” to mean all the scholastic, professional and certain
other examinations entrusted by the Government to the Council from
time to time.
107. Chapter III of Part II deals with the powers and duties of
the Chairperson and the Commissioner of the State Council.
Regulation 4(1) provides for the duties of the Commissioner.
Regulation 4(1)(b) provides that the Commissioner shall act as a
Member-Secretary of all committees of the State Council except the
Examination Committee and it is his duty to attend and participate in
Page No.160
TET (GROUP).doc
the discussions at the meeting of such committees and place before it
any information as may be called for at such meeting. Regulation
4(1)(g) requires the Commissioner to take action on the minutes and
reports of the State Council and its committees. Regulation 4(1)(n)
provides that in case of an examination conducted by the State
Council on contract basis, the Commissioner shall be responsible to
organize and conduct the examination as per the terms and
conditions approved by the Council. Chapter V of Part II deals with
committees of the State Council. Regulation 7(5)(a) provides that the
Commissioner shall be the Secretary of all the committees of the
State Council except the Examination Committee. Regulation 8(1) of
Chapter V of Part II provides that the Executive Committee shall
function subject to the control of the State Council. Regulation 8(2)
(t) provides that the Executive Committee shall lay down the
procedure and specify the penalties to be followed by the State
Council and the Regional Councils in dealing with cases of unfair
means adopted by persons in the process of examination.
108. Regulation 11(2) provides for duties and functions of the
Examination Committee. Regulation 11(2)(i) provides that the
Examination Committee shall recommend to the Executive
Committee schedule of punishment to be followed by the Regional
Page No.161
TET (GROUP).doc
Council in dealing with malpractices of candidates, paper-setters, etc.
109. At the outset, the petitioners have adopted common
approach for attacking the impugned orders by treating cancellation
of results and permanent debarring from appearing in future TET
exam as one and the same. However, we do not agree with this
approach. According to us, both the issues needs to be addressed
separately since parameters required to adjudicate both the issues
would be different.
110. The following two broad issues arise for consideration of
this Court :-
Whether cancellation of results by respondent-Council
and whether the penalty/punishment imposed without
following principles of natural justice is justified.
Issue No. 1 :
Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the present
case, respondents – State and Maharashtra State Council of
Examination / Education were justified in cancelling the
performance of the petitioners who appeared in TET –
2018 and TET – 2019 exams without following the
principles of natural justice?
111. Respondent-State at the outset of the hearing called upon
the petitioners to approach the respondent to verify their answer-
Page No.162
TET (GROUP).doc
sheets with model answers so that the root cause of the issue raised
in these petitions can be thrashed out which will prove whether
petitioners are correct in stating that marks shown on mark-sheet are
correct or whether respondents are correct in contending tampering
of marks. Despite this, none of the petitioners availed the offer nor
any of the petitioners in their submissions has refuted this, except in
case of one of petitioner whose marks were shown as 84 when he
secured 82. Even this petitioner later did not contest correct marks as
82. In our view, this clearly amounts to admission of tampering of
marks by the petitioners. On this ground itself, the cancellation of
results has to be confirmed and challenge is required to be rejected
without going into other submissions. In our view, equitable
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 cannot be
invoked for seeking remedy on this issue.
112. In Writ Petition No.9430 of 2022 there are total 15
petitioners. The respondents in the reply have annexed the answer
sheets attempted by these petitioners which are signed by the
candidates and based on these answer sheets, correct marks obtained
are mentioned in the reply. These marks are compared with the
marks shown on the mark-sheet which proves tampering of the
marks. These petitioners have not expressly denied that these answer
Page No.163
TET (GROUP).doc
sheets do not belong to them nor they have come out with the case
that when compared with model answers, the answers given by them
would reflect the marks originally allotted and appearing in the
mark-sheet. Similar answer sheets attempted by other petitioners
have been filed by the respondents in other matters which has not
been rebutted by these petitioners. In our view, this is clear case of
admission of tampering of marks in the mark-sheet as compared to
the actual marks which the petitioners were entitled to. There are
more than 500 petitions before this Court and none of the petitioners
has come out with a positive case based on their answer sheet and
the model answers to prove that the original marks shown in the
mark-sheet is correct. In our view, the petitioners who have invoked
equitable jurisdiction of this Court cannot seek any relief on basis of
these facts by raising hyper-technical and superfluous objections.
113. We are quite astonished that some of the candidates whose
statements were recorded by the police authorities much prior to the
impugned order dated 3 August 2022 have filed petitions in this
Court namely, Writ Petition Nos.10879 of 2022, 9512 of 2022 and
9760 of 2023 without disclosing in their petitions that such
statements have been recorded. In our view, this is a clear case of
suppression of important material fact by the petitioners and moreso
Page No.164
TET (GROUP).doc
by the petitioners who are either teachers or who would be entering
the teaching profession. These petitioners have not only engaged in
malpractices but have also played a fraud on this Court by not
disclosing this important material. Therefore, these petitions are
dismissed on account of suppression of material facts. In this group of
petitions, in most of the petitions there are more than one petitioner
and, therefore, the respondent-Council is not able to state exactly the
writ petitions number filed by the candidates whose statements have
been recorded, other than those stated above. Therefore, we deem fit
that the Council would verify this at its end, the candidates whose
statements have been recorded prior to 3rd August 2022 and who
have filed the petitions but have not disclosed this important
material. Such candidates should be identified by the contesting
respondents i.e. State and the Council and insofar as these candidates
are concerned this Court is not inclined to give any relief including
the relief of quashing of permanent debarment from appearing in
TET exam since these candidates have not approached this Court
with clean hands and this Court would not permit such persons to
pollute the minds of the young children.
114. The impugned order dated 3 August, 2022, is passed by the
Commissioner of the Council. Section 2(b) of 1998 Act defines
Page No.165
TET (GROUP).doc
Commissioner to mean Commissioner of the State Council appointed
under Section 20. Section 20(2) provides that the Commissioner shall
be wholly responsible for conduct of the examinations to be
conducted by the State Council. The Commissioner under Section
20(5) is the Executive Officer of the State Council and he would
exercise powers as may be prescribed. The powers and duties of the
Commissioner are specified in Chapter III, Part II of 2010
Regulations. Rule 4 of Chapter III provides that the Commissioner
shall act as a member secretary of all committees of the State
Council, and further, he will act as Chairperson of the Examination
Committee of the State Council. Rule 4 further provides that in case
of an examination conducted by the State Council on a contract basis;
the Commissioner shall be responsible for the design and
organization to conduct the examination as per the terms and
conditions approved by the Council. Therefore, in our view, the
impugned order passed by the Commissioner cancelling the
performance of the candidates cannot be said to be without any
authority of law. The certificate declaring the result of the
examination is signed by the Commissioner, and therefore, in our
view, the Commissioner also has the power to recall such certificate
and cancel the performance. It is settled position in law that power
conferred to issue certificate would also include power to cancel if
Page No.166
TET (GROUP).doc
such certificate was obtained by fraud.
115. The TET – 2019 examination was conducted by the
Maharashtra State Council of Examination / Education on 19 January
2020. The task of conducting the examinations was outsourced to
G.A. Software Company. The examination papers were in the form of
Multiple-Choice Question (MCQ). The answer-sheets of the
petitioners were scanned by Optical Memory Reading System (OMR).
The petitioners were provided with the model answers and the
answer-sheet attempted by them. The results were declared in August
2020 since in the interregnum i.e. from March 2020 to August 2020,
there was lockdown in the country on account of COVID – 19.
116. Out of more than 3,37,333 candidates who appeared for
examinations, approximately 16,000 candidates successfully cleared
the test. These candidates included existing teachers who were
required to pass the test for continuing in service. In addition, there
were other candidates also who wanted to pursue their career as a
teacher in future and teachers teaching in minority institutions,
junior colleges etc. and, therefore, had to mandatorily appear and
clear the said examination for taking job of teaching students of
Standards I to VIII.
Page No.167
TET (GROUP).doc
117. Around December, 2021 a communication was received
from cyber police station, Pune to respondent no.2-Commissioner
informing him about irregularities in TET exam for 2019-2020, which
came to light while investigation into malpractices which crept in
MHADA employment 2020 examination. Statements of candidates
were recorded by the police authorities wherein there is admission of
marks being tampered. In some of the statements, illegal gratification
is also said to have been accepted. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4
immediately swung into action and filed an FIR against its officials
and one Mr. Pritesh Deshmukh of G.A. Software Company. In the
communication by the police to the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4, it was
informed that results of around 7,880 unqualified candidates were
tampered with. A committee of six members was appointed by
respondent no.3-Maharashtra State Examination Council for
verification and revaluation of the digital records in the police
station. This Committee prepared a report on the basis of data
available with the cyber police station. The expert committee found
results of 7,880 candidates having interfered with by tampering with
the marks, fake mark sheet etc. While conducting the verification of
these around 7,880 candidates, 15 clerks were deputed by the
committee for verification of the marks. Pursuant to this report, the
Maharashtra State Examination Council informed respondent No. 2-
Page No.168
TET (GROUP).doc
Commissioner for cancellation of performance of these candidates
and fixing punishment for the offence of malpractices in the
examination. A resolution of the Council was passed on 11 May, 2022
in the special meeting for cancellation of performance of these
candidates. Ultimately, the impugned order dated 3 August 2022
/communications were issued by the Commissioner of the Council
cancelling the performance of these candidates and imposing
penalty/punishment by way of permanently debarring them from
appearing for the TET exams.
118. In our view, based on the above facts, it is a case of
malpractices / irregularity in TET exam at a large scale since out of
around 16,000 successful candidates, marks of approximately 50%
candidates were tampered with. The respondent nos.1 to 4
immediately constituted expert committee of 6 members and with the
support of other staff physically verified these irregularities and
submitted a report, which came to be accepted and the results of
these candidates were cancelled and they were permanently
debarred. Since what was tampered with was only the marks and not
answer-sheets, no expertise is required to do verification of marks of
exam based on MCQ with marks printed on mark-sheets.
Page No.169
TET (GROUP).doc
119. In the issues relating to conduct of examination and
irregularities found therein at a large scale, this Court will restrain
itself from interfering with the decision taken by expert body for
cancellation of the results. The experts in the education field after
verifying the records and after discussing amongst themselves have
come to a conclusion that there has been irregularity in tampering of
the marks of around 7,880 candidates. The action taken is based on
the evidence which was verified by the Committee and its staff.
Therefore, in our view, it cannot be said that there was no sufficient
material for cancellation of the exam results.
120. In education matters and more particularly when it comes
to the present examination which requires a teacher to qualify for
teaching in Standards I to VIII, high standard need to be maintained
by the authority conducting the exam and if such standards are
compromised by anyone then the authority would be the apt to take
the decision and to maintain the standard. We do not find any reason
for interference in the cancellation of the results. Recently and very
often malpractices in exams conducted for taking admission as a
student or for getting employment has become very rampant and
regular. Such practice has to be dealt with stern action so that there is
deterrent in future for getting involved in such practices. Such
Page No.170
TET (GROUP).doc
examinations are conducted to select the best candidates by ensuring
competition with a fair play amongst the candidates. The authorities
have segregated the tainted results based on the initial reports
received by the police and subsequently verified by the committee
and its staff.
121. When it comes to malpractices on such a large extent, the
authorities are justified in cancelling the results of tainted candidates
without giving any opportunity of hearing. In such cases, opportunity
of hearing would not subserve the purpose and the justice need to be
done. Looking to the fact that the marks have been admittedly
altered as observed above giving opportunity of hearing for
cancellation of results would have not made any difference and
furthermore no prejudice caused is shown to us by not affording
opportunity of hearing and more particularly when as observed by us
above there has been admission of tampering of marks. It is also
important to note that in the present case, the exams were held in
January, 2020, the results were declared in August, 2020.
Information of malpractice came to the knowledge of respondent nos.
1 to 4 in December, 2021 and thereafter expert committee was
formed leading to cancellation of results. Admittedly, the original
answer sheet with the agency G.A. Software who conducted the exam
Page No.171
TET (GROUP).doc
have been destroyed as per the police report but the scanned copies
are available with the respondents. The model answers and the
answer-sheet attempted by the candidates both were furnished to the
candidates in and around February 2020. Though petitioners may not
have retained carbon copy of their answer sheets after declaration of
results but the respondents have scanned copies of answer sheets
attempted by the petitioners and counter signed by them. The
irregularities happened by altering the actual marks with the marks
printed on the mark-sheet. The respondents / expert committee has
verified the scanned copies and thereafter gave a report based on
which the results have been cancelled. Therefore, there is sufficient
material as observed by us with the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for
concluding that actual marks obtained have been tampered with by
printing different marks on the mark-sheet. For example, if the actual
marks obtained is 64 the mark-sheet shows 82. Not a single
petitioner has come before this Court with a stand that he is ready to
show that he has secured marks shown in the final mark sheet which
is proved to be tampered.
122. Therefore, in our view, the prayer made for quashing the
impugned order/communication to the extent that the authorities
have cancelled the results of the petitioners cannot be accepted and
Page No.172
TET (GROUP).doc
the respondent nos.1 to 4 have rightly taken the decision of
cancellation based on the recommendation made by the expert
committee who after verifying the documents have come to a
conclusion that there has been tampering with the marks of around
7880 candidates. None of the petitioners has prayed that whole of
the examination should have been cancelled and such an argument
across the bar cannot be considered. The successful candidates are
also not made parties. Therefore, challenge is only qua cancellation.
123. The reference in the impugned order dated 03.08.2022 to
Sections 7 and 8 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices at
University, Board and Other Specified Examination Act, 1982 is in the
context of these provisions having been invoked in the FIR lodged
with the Police authorities. It is not correct to say that the impugned
order is passed under Sections 7 and 8 of the 1982 Act. It is only to
give background which led to the impugned order that there is a
reference to the FIR in which these provisions have been quoted.
Therefore, submission of the petitioners on this count to quash order,
cannot be accepted.
124. The submission of the petitioners that cancellation of
results would amount to punishment / penalty cannot be accepted.
The respondents have only corrected the marks which they were
Page No.173
TET (GROUP).doc
actually entitled to with the marks which were shown and tampered
with on the mark-sheet and since unfair means were adopted the
consequence was cancellation. In our view, this would amount to
correction of the marks originally shown on the mark-sheet which
were found to be incorrect because of the unfair means adopted by
tampering the marks. By no stretch of imagination can it be treated
as penalty but it amounts to correcting the marks originally shown on
the mark-sheet with the correct marks post the inquiry and
verification done by the respondent. Therefore, this contention
cannot be accepted. The impugned action of cancellation of results is
a remedial measure and therefore, cannot be construed as penal in
nature.
125. The submission of the petitioners that order dated 3 August
2022 is a non-reasoned and non-speaking and, therefore, is required
to be quashed cannot be accepted. In our view, the order does
contain the reasons for cancellation of the results and imposing the
penalty. The order refers to 11 documents starting from the year
2019 till 2022 which were considered before passing the order.
Though these documents were not annexed to the order but in the
reply of the respondents these documents have been annexed. Prior
to filing of the petition, none of the petitioners had sought for these
Page No.174
TET (GROUP).doc
documents. In the first paragraph of the order, there is a reference to
FIR No. 56 of 2021 which was filed on account of malpractices
conducted in TET-2019 exam. The second paragraph states that based
on the said FIR, verification was done of answer papers of 7,880
candidates who were found to have tampered with the results. The
third paragraph refers to the principle of segregation between tainted
and untainted candidates. The fourth paragraph refers to the 1998
Act. The fifth paragraph refers to Resolution No. 350 dated 24 June
2022 passed by the Council and thereafter regarding each
malpractice details are given. It is thereafter that the performance of
7,880 candidates have been cancelled. In our view, this order cannot
be termed as unreasoned and non-speaking. The order does give the
reasons for cancellation of the performance of 7880 candidates and
the nature of malpractice used in tampering with the marks. Such
orders which are required to be passed on emergency basis to instil
public confidence in the system cannot be expected to run into
hundreds of pages. It is sufficed if the basic malpractice is specified
and the candidates whose performance are cancelled is mentioned
along with reference to the Act and the documents leading to such an
action. In our view, on a reading of the order dated 3 August 2022, it
cannot be said to be a non-speaking or non-reasoned order.
Page No.175
TET (GROUP).doc
126. Purity of any examination and more particularly pertaining
to academic accomplishment or suitability of candidates for the post
of teacher is unquestionable requirement of the rationality of any
examination process. The authorities of the State have to take
appropriate measures to maintain the purity of examination process.
It is by now well settled principle of law that where there are
allegations of occurrence of large-scale malpractices in the conduct of
any examination process, the authorities are entitled to cancel the
results of the tainted candidates. The authorities are not obliged to
seek proof of each and every fact which vitiated the performance. The
requirement of strict rules of evidence for the proof of facts would
neither be consistent with the demands of larger public interest nor
would be conducive to the efficiency of administration. In such cases,
the principles of Wednesbury are required to be considered and larger
latitude is to be given to the authorities who are in-charge of
conducting the exam. In the instant case, there is more than adequate
evidence of tampering of the marks and in such circumstance it
cannot be said that the impugned action of the respondents are so
outrageous in its defiance of logic or model standards. It is not
necessary for the evidence on record to point to one and only
conclusion which is that malpractice has taken place at a systematic
level but same must be on the basis of preponderance of probability
Page No.176
TET (GROUP).doc
that such malpractice has occurred. In the instant case, based on the
comparison of the answer-sheet with the original marks and the
marks which they were entitled to, in our view, this is not a case of no
evidence but it is a case of sufficient evidence with the respondents
coupled with admission as stated above for taking the impugned
action.
127. In academic matters, the Court shall keep their hands off
since the issues fall within the exclusive domain of the experts. The
Court shall not preside in appeal over the opinion expressed by the
expert academic bodies and it is wise and safe for the Court to leave
the decision of academic experts who are familiar with the problem
they face than the Court generally.
128. This Court has to test the prayers sought for by the
petitioners by examining whether decision making process has been
followed and this Court cannot examine the decision. The decision
impugned in the present petition relates to cancellation of
performance of candidates in the exam by order dated 3 August
2022. The Court has to examine what steps respondents have taken
before passing the impugned order. On 16 December 2021, the Cyber
Police, Pune informed Education Commissioner about malpractice
having found in TET 2019 exam. Statements of the candidates were
Page No.177
TET (GROUP).doc
recorded by the police authorities before 3 August 2022 order. On
receipt of the said letter, on the same day the State informed the
Council to investigate this issue on priority basis and to take
appropriate action. The State also directed the Council to cooperate
with the police in the investigation of the scam. The power to issue
such a direction can be found in Section 26 of the 1998 Act. The
Chairman of the Council immediately approached the police
authorities and lodged an FIR No.56 of 2021. In the said FIR, based
on the information received from the police authorities, details of the
scam was narrated and the persons involved were named as accused.
On 3 February 2022, cyber police addressed a letter to the Council in
which the police authorities stated that they have found malpractice
in the marks of 7,880 candidates out of around 3 lakh candidates
who appeared for the exam. The police, therefore, requested the
Council to verify the malpractice at their end by deputing necessary
persons at the police station where the data was available. On 8
February 2022, the Council constituted a six-member Committee
headed by Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner,
Superintendent etc. to verify the data at the police station and make
a report. The power to constitute such a committee can be traced to
Section 18(2) and Section 23(1)(p) of the 1998 Act.
Page No.178
TET (GROUP).doc
129. On 10 February 2022, the State directed the council to
immediately examine the malpractice within 15 days and to take
appropriate action. Again, this direction can be traced to Sections 23
to 26 of the 1998 Act. On 14 February 2022, the Committee gave its
report to the Council, wherein the different types of malpractice
found in verification of 7,880 answer-sheet was reported. On 11 May
2022, Council deliberated the issue after considering the above
report. On 11 May 2022, a meeting was called off the Council which
was attended by eight members who were high ranking officials and
the resolution was passed with regard to the malpractice. On 25 May
2022, the resolution was placed before the appropriate Committee
for action. On 10 June 2022, the State addressed a letter to the
Council on the action to be taken on the malpractice and report the
same. On 24 June 2022, Resolution No.350 was passed by the
Council in regard to the malpractices which occurred in TET 2019
exam and ultimately on 3 August 2022, the impugned order was
passed by the Commissioner of the Council cancelling the results. In
our view, based on the above events, the petitioners cannot contend
that the decision-making process was flawed. The sequence of events
clearly shows that a detailed exercise was done by the respondents to
maintain the purity of the examination before passing the impugned
order on 3 of August 2022. It is not a case of decision in haste, but it
Page No.179
TET (GROUP).doc
is a case of a decision after due verification and deliberation to
maintain the standard of the examination.
130. In academic matters, where teachers have to be selected
based on the results of competitive exam, one cannot take a hyper-
technical view by contending that the respondents have no authority
to pass the impugned order or the impugned order is passed by an
authority having no jurisdiction. In any case, as observed by us
above, there are sufficient powers granted under the 1998 Act with
the respondents for passing the impugned order. Therefore, this
Court does not find any fault in the decision-making process of the
respondents in passing the impugned order.
131. The submission made by the petitioners that in the
impugned order there is a reference to provisions by referring to the
1998 Act which does not find place in the said Act and, therefore, the
impugned order is bad in law cannot be accepted. The impugned
order refers to the 1998 Act and we have already analysed the said
Act and have come to a conclusion that the powers have been rightly
exercised in accordance with the various provisions of the Act. We do
agree that there is a wrong reference to Section 8(2)(t). In our view,
this refers to Regulation 8 of part II of Chapter V of 2010 Regulations
which are formed under the 1998 Act. Therefore, though the name of
Page No.180
TET (GROUP).doc
the regulation is not specified in the order but the Regulation does
exist in which there is a reference to Regulation 8(2)(t). It is settled
position that mere mentioning or an error in referring to a particular
provision would not vitiate the order, if the source can be traced to
the provision in the Act for exercising the power which, in the instant
case as observed above, such power does exist in the Act itself.
Therefore, contention raised on this count by the petitioners is
required to be rejected.
132. On a harmonious reading of the 1998 Act and the 2010
Regulations, various committees formed under the Regulations have
to recommend their views to the State Council and the Commissioner
of the State Council has to finally act in accordance with his duties,
which encompasses the conduct of the examination. The State
Government, under Section 26 of the 1998 Act is the ultimate
authority for giving directions and for the supervision and control of
all the authorities under the Act and the Regulations. Therefore, the
contention raised by the petitioners that the impugned orders are
passed at the behest and direction of the State Government and not
independently by the committees, cannot be accepted.
133. By GR dated 23 August 2013, State, pursuant to enactment
of RTE Act, 2009 made TET compulsory. The State decided to
Page No.181
TET (GROUP).doc
conduct TET twice a year. The said GR provided for 2 papers to be
set-up and minimum marks required for declaring a candidate as
successful was also specified. The TET passing certificate was also
awarded by the State. It was decided that the task of conducting
exam would be entrusted to Maharashtra State Examination Council
on behalf of the State for a fee.
134. Pursuant to above, when malpractice was found in TET-
2019 exam conducted by Council on behalf of the State, the school
and sports department of the State instructed the Commissioner of
the Council by letter dated 10 June 2022, to declare results of tainted
candidates as “disqualified” and that of untainted candidates as
“qualified”. The State instructed Council to take action under 2010
Regulations for imposing penalty including permanent debarment.
The list of candidates working with Zilla Parishad School was to be
sent to concerned management for taking action in accordance with
service conditions and pending said action to freeze Shalarth IDs and
salary and further to terminate services after giving hearing.
135. In our view, directions in communication dated 10 th June
2022 were issued by the State to the Council, since Council had
conducted exam on behalf of the State. On a reading of this letter the
Council was directed to take decision in accordance with law without
Page No.182
TET (GROUP).doc
seeking approval of the State. This communication was not in terms
to be interpreted that Council has to mandatorily do what was
advised. It was in the nature of advisory. The source of power to issue
such directions can be found in Section 26 of the 1998 Act which we
have analysed in earlier part of our analysis. The object of 1998 Act is
to regulate conduct of examinations in the State of Maharashtra. In
our view, giving directions to the Council with regard to malpractice
found in TET exam conducted by the Council on behalf of the State is
an integral and incidental matter. This would also be in terms of
Section 35(2) of the 1998 Act since such directions are consistent
with 1998 Act which is enacted to regulate conduct of examination.
Since we have traced the power to issue directions under the 1998
Act, submissions made by relying on 2010 Regulations to challenge
the power is to be rejected. Regulations are to supplement the Act
and not to override the Act. These directions cannot be compared to
provisions in other Acts where one authority is statutorily
empowering to act in a certain way without there being power to
issue directions. In our view, the State would have failed to discharge
its constitutional duties if such directions had not been given.
136. The power for constitution of Committee on 8 February
2022 by the State Council for verifying the documents of tampering
Page No.183
TET (GROUP).doc
can be found under Sections 23(1)(p) and 23(1)(t) since finding out
truth of malpractices committed in the conduct of exams conducted
by the Council is for discharge of its such function of conducting
exams and for the purpose of 1998 Act, which is to regulate exams.
Therefore, no challenge can be assailed by the petitioners on this
count. Merely because there is no examination committee, it cannot
be accepted that the Council has no power to form other committee
for investigation and preparing report of malpractice.
137. The submissions of the petitioners that it is Examination
Committee under Regulation 13 of Chapter V of Part II of 2010
Regulations which should have cancelled the performance and have
imposed the penalty cannot be accepted. Regulation 13 provides for
duties and functions and not with powers of the Committee. The
Regulation and 1998 Act makes a distinction between duties and
powers. Furthermore, Regulation 13(2)(q) only provides the said
Committee to make its report to the Standing Committee. If such
duties cannot be exercised because of any reason then certainly State
Council can step in to do the duties. Similarly, Regulation 12(2)
provides for duties of Standing Committee and not powers. Similarly,
Regulation 11(2)(i) provides for duties and functions of examination
committee to recommend and not power to cancel results and impose
Page No.184
TET (GROUP).doc
penalty. Regulation 8 dealing with Executive Committee is under the
control of the State Council and Regulation 8(2) deals with its duties
and does not empower them to cancel results and impose penalties.
138. Submission made by Mr. Pakale, learned senior counsel in
rejoinder that in his case, reply has not been filed by the State and
the Council and, therefore, is handicapped, is not acceptable. From
day one, it was the understanding that the replies filed in Writ
Petition No.9430 of 2022 will be treated as replies in all the matters.
The learned senior counsel in his oral submission has relied upon the
replies filed by the State and the Council in Writ Petition No.9430 of
2022. Therefore, it is not correct in rejoinder to submit that the
petitioners are handicapped since no replies have been filed in their
matters.
139. We appreciate the fair stand taken by the learned senior
counsel Mr. Pakale that it is not his case, that the Council does not
have power to cancel the performance. We appreciate the submission
by Mr. Pakale made that the punitive action taken is without
jurisdiction and it is this point which is being canvassed by him. We
have dealt with the issue of punishment and the principle of natural
justice separately.
Page No.185
TET (GROUP).doc
140. The submission of Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned senior
counsel that the petitions are not premature is required to be
accepted. Though in communication dated 10 June 2022, the State
was required to take certain steps before imposing the penalty or
taking any punitive action, but by virtue of 3 August 2022 order, the
respondent-State and Council cancelled the performance and
permanently debarred the candidates from appearing in TET. The
consequence of that would be that the candidates would not be
eligible to continue in teaching job. Therefore, in our view, these
petitions are not premature. The submission of Mr. Bandiwadekar
that Section 23(1)(t) does not empower the State/Council to
terminate Shalarth IDs and employment is not correct. The Shalarth
IDs have not been terminated but has been frozen subject to
disciplinary action being initiated against the teachers under the
applicable law. The submission of Mr. Bandiwadekar that
Government has not filed any reply in his petition and, therefore, is
unable to make any submissions is also not acceptable. Similar
submission made by Mr. Pakale has been rejected by us.
141. The submission of Mr. Sapkal, learned senior counsel that
the decision in the case of Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust (supra)
applies to all the petitioners cannot be accepted. On a reading of
Page No.186
TET (GROUP).doc
paragraphs 220 to 224 along with order passed in Review Petition,
the benefit of extended time to clear TET exam is restricted only to
the teachers who were duly appointed prior to introduction of TET
being made compulsory. The benefit of this judgment cannot be
availed by the persons who were not in service on the date when TET
was made compulsory. In paragraph 224, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has categorically stated that those aspiring for appointment and those
in service as teachers aspiring for appointment by promotion must
qualify the TET or else they would have no right of consideration of
their candidature. In Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust (supra) order
dated 29 May 2026 in paragraph 33, it is once again made clear that
the time for in-service teachers to acquire TET qualification has been
extended up to 31 August 2028. Therefore, the period extended by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot come to the rescue of the teachers
who have been recruited after the date of TET being made
compulsory.
142. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.
Bandiwadekar that the decision in the case of Nidhi Kaim (supra)
cannot have any precedent value since there was a difference of
opinion on the issue of the punishment which was referred to larger
bench and till today it has not been decided is not correct. The
Page No.187
TET (GROUP).doc
reference to larger bench of this decision has already been decided by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 13 February 2017 and reported in
(2017) 4 SCC 1.
143. Reliance placed on Government Resolution (GR) dated 23
August, 2013 and more particularly, Clause 5(12)(iv) by the
petitioners, to submit that the action can be taken only against the
Examination Council and not against the candidates who appeared
for the exam, cannot be accepted. The context in which this GR was
issued was that the responsibility of conducting TET exam was
entrusted to the Maharashtra State Examination Council, and in that
context, the responsibility is fixed on the said Council if any
irregularities are found. The said Government Resolution nowhere
states that the candidates whose results are tampered with will not
face any action. In absence of any such specific clause in the said
Government Resolution prohibiting any action against the candidates,
reading such a restriction into the GR by the petitioners cannot be
accepted.
144. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjuman Ishaat-
E-Taleem Trust vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 53, while invoking
Article 142 of the Constitution of India, has held that those teachers
who were in service prior to the advent of the RTE Act, and have less
53 2025 INSC 1063
Page No.188
TET (GROUP).doc
than five years of service left as on the date of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court (1 September, 2025) and does not wish to
seek promotion, may continue in service till the age of
superannuation without qualifying the TET exam. However, such
teachers would not be entitled to promotion, and if such teachers
aspire for promotion, they will have to qualify TET. Therefore, the
petitioners whose performance is cancelled by the respondents and
who satisfy the conditions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
will not be affected by our present order upholding cancellation of
the performance of such candidates. However, that would not
preclude the respondents from taking any penal action for having
indulged in malpractices, subject to the respondents following the
principles of natural justice.
145. In the instructions for the candidates on the reverse side of
the admit card, it was specifically brought to the notice of the
candidates that if the candidates engage in any malpractices then
severe consequences would follow. Guidelines for conducting TET
dated 11 February 2011, issued by the National Council for teachers
education in paragraph 12 dealing with procedure to conduct the
Test also states that serious view will be taken in case of any
malpractice or impersonation. It is also important to note that none
Page No.189
TET (GROUP).doc
of the petitioners have challenged the cancellation of the
performance on the ground that marks when compared with model
answers and the answer-sheet attempted by them and which were
originally printed on the mark-sheet are the correct marks nor any
petitioners have made a positive case on these lines in the present
group of petitions. This would amount to admission of the petitioners
that the marks originally allotted when compared with the answer-
sheet and model answers has been admittedly tampered with.
146. In education scam matters and more particularly when it
comes to scam in examination dealing with teachers’ eligibility to
teach children, the Constitutional Court would adopt the approach of
upholding sanctity and purity of examination in case of malpractice
on mass scale rather than getting swayed by challenge to the power
of cancellation of performance. This is moreso when the candidates
have by conduct before the Court by refusing to accept fair invitation
virtually admitted the tampering the marks to which no submissions
have been canvassed by any of the petitioners. Accepting challenge to
cancellation by this Court would amount to failure of its duty to
protect the Constitution of India which would be contrary to the oath
taken by the Judges.
Page No.190
TET (GROUP).doc
147. We have been guided for our view made above, by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with such situation of
malpractice in examination right from the year 1954.
148. We propose to reproduce relevant paragraphs of the
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which have guided this Court
for coming to the above conclusion.
149. Therefore, in our view, walking on the path shown by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and applying the same to the present facts
before us, as narrated above, we do not see any reason for interfering
with the decision of respondent nos.1 to 4 insofar as it relates to
cancellation of the exam results of the petitioners.
150. The earliest decision rendered by 5 Judge bench of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court is in the case of Vice-Chanceller, Utkal
University and Others vs. S. K. Ghosh and Others54. Paragraph 17 of
this judgment reads as under: -
“17. We are not prepared to perpetrate the error into which
the learned High Court Judges permitted themselves to be led
and examine the facts for ourselves as a court of appeal but in
view of the strictures the High Court has made on the Vice-
Chancellor and the Syndicate we are compelled to observe that
we do not feel they are justified. The question was one of
urgency and the Vice-Chancellor and the members of the
Syndicate were well within their rights in exercising their
discretion in the way they did. It may be that the matter could
have been handled in some other way, as, for example, in the
54 (1954) 1 SCC 44
Page No.191
TET (GROUP).doc
manner the learned Judges indicate, but it is not the function of
courts of law to substitute their wisdom and discretion for that
of the persons to whose judgment the matter in question is
entrusted by the law. The University authorities acted honestly
as reasonable and responsible men confronted with an urgent
situation are entitled to act. They had experts of their own on
their body. They examined others who in their opinion might
throw light on the incident. They themselves compared the two
papers and, after a deliberation of some six hours, arrived at a
unanimous decision and then they reviewed the matter afresh at
a second meeting with the assistance of one of their member
who was not present on the first occasion. It is inaccurate to
describe that as haste and unjust to characterise their action as
unreasonable and lacking due care. This is decidedly not the sort
of case in which a mandamus ought to issue. We accordingly set
aside the order of the High Court.”
151. The issue again came up for consideration before the
Constitution bench of 3 judges in the case of Bihar School
Examination Board (supra). Chief Justice Hidayatullah observed in
paragraphs 13 to 15 on behalf of the bench as under :-
“13. This is not a case of any particular individual who is being
charged with adoption of unfair means but of the conduct of all
the examinees or at least a vast majority of them at a particular
centre. If it is not a question of charging any one individually
with unfair means but to condemn the examination as
ineffective for the purpose it was held. Must the Board give an
opportunity to all the candidates to represent their cases? We
think not. It was not necessary for the Board to give an
opportunity to the candidates if the examinations as a whole
were being cancelled. The Board had not charged any one with
unfair means so that he could claim to defend himself. The
examination was vitiated by adoption of unfair means on a mass
scale. In these circumstances it would be wrong to insist that the
Board must hold a detailed inquiry into the matter and examine
each individual case to satisfy itself which of the candidates had
Page No.192
TET (GROUP).doc
not adopted unfair means. The examination as a whole had to
go.
14. Reliance was placed upon Ghanshyam Das Gupta case to
which we referred earlier. There the examination results of three
candidates were cancelled, and this Court held that they should
have received an opportunity of explaining their conduct. It was
said that even if the inquiry involved a large number of persons,
the Committee should frame proper regulations for the conduct
of such inquiries but not deny the opportunity. We do not think
that that case has any application. Surely it was not intended
that where the examination as a whole was vitiated, say by
leakage of papers or by destruction of some of the answer books
or by discovery of unfair means practised on a vast scale that an
inquiry would be made giving a chance to every one appearing
at that examination to have his say? What the Court intended to
lay down was that if any particular person was to be proceeded
against, he must have a proper chance to defend himself and
this did not obviate the necessity of giving an opportunity even
though the number of persons proceeded against was large. The
Court was then not considering the right of an examining body
to cancel its own examination when it was satisfied that the
examination was not properly conducted or that in the conduct
of the examination the majority of the examinees had not
conducted themselves as they should have. To make such
decisions depend upon a full-fledged judicial inquiry would hold
up the functioning of such autonomous bodies as Universities
and School Board. While we do not wish to whittle down the
requirements of natural justice and fair-play in cases where such
requirement may be said to arise, we do not want that this Court
should be understood as having stated that an inquiry with a
right to representation must always precede in every case,
however different. The universities are responsible for their
standards and the conduct of examinations. The essence of the
examinations is that the worth of every person is appraised
without any assistance from an outside source. If at a centre the
whole body of students receive assistance and are managed to
secure success in the neighbourhood of 100% when others at
other centres are successful only at an average of 50%, it is
obvious that the University or the Board must do something in
the matter. It cannot hold a detailed quasi-judicial inquiry with a
Page No.193
TET (GROUP).doc
right to its alumni to plead and lead evidence etc., before the
results are withheld or the examinations cancelled. If there is
sufficient material on which it can be demonstrated that the
university was right in its conclusion that the examinations
ought to be cancelled then academic standards require that the
university's appreciation of the problem must be respected. It
would not do for the Court to say that you should have
examined all the candidates or even their representatives with a
view to ascertaining whether they had received assistance or
not. To do this would encourage indiscipline if not also perjury.
15. We are satisfied that no principle of natural justice was
violated in this case. The Board through its Chairman and later
itself reached the right conclusion that the examinations at this
Centre had been vitiated by practising unfair means on a mass
scale and the Board had every right to cancel the examination
and order that a fresh examination be held. There was no need
to give the examinees an opportunity of contesting this
conclusion because the evidence in the case was perfectly plain
and transparent. We therefore set aside the order of the High
Court and ordered dismissal of the writ petition but made no
order as to costs.”
152. The next decision is in the case of Maharashtra State Board
of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education vs. K. S. Gandhi and
Others55. Justice K. Ramaswamy on behalf of the bench observed in
paragraphs 10, 29 and 37 observed as under :-
“10. The question then is whether the candidates or their parents
or guardians are privy to the fraudulent fabrication. Since we are
informed that investigation in this regard by the police is in
progress, we refrain to express any final opinion in this regard.
Suffice to state that the records clearly establish that there was a
fraudulent fabrication of the moderators' marks sheets of 283
candidates including the respondents herein. The question,
therefore, emerges whether the conclusion reached by the
55 (1991) 2 SCC 716
Page No.194
TET (GROUP).doc
Standing Committee that the fabrication was done at the behest
of either the candidate or the parents or the guardians to their
advantage is based on records. We remind ourselves that while
exercising the powers, under Article 226 or Article 136 of the
Constitution, by the High Court or of this Court, we are not
sitting as a court of appeal on the findings of facts recorded by
the Standing Committee (domestic enquiry body), nor have
power to evaluate the evidence as an appellate court and to
come to its own conclusions. If the conclusions reached by the
Board can be fairly supported by the evidence on record then the
High Court or this Court has to uphold the decision, though as
appellate court of facts, may be inclined to take a different view.
11……….
12……….
13………
14………..
….
….
29. In Ghazanfar Rashid v. Secretary, Board of High School and
Intermediate Education, U.P. AIR 1979 All 209, a Full Bench,
speaking through our learned brother K. N. Singh, J. (as he then
was) dealing with the standard of proof of the charge of use of
unfair means at the examination, it was held that it was the duty
of the Examination Committee etc., to maintain purity of
examination and if examinee is found to have used unfair means
at the examination, it is the duty of the Examination Committee
to take action against the erring examinees to maintain the
educational standard. Direct evidence is available in some cases
but in a large number of cases direct evidence is not available. In
that situation the Examination Committee has of necessity to rely
on circumstantial evidence which may include the answer given
by the examinee, the report of the Superintendent of the centre,
the invigilator and the report of the experts and other attending
circumstances. The Examination Committee, if it relies upon such
evidence to come to the conclusion that the examinee has used
unfair means in answering questions than it is not open to the
High Court to interfere with that decision, merely because the
High Court may take a different view on reassessment of those
circumstances. While it is open to the High Court to interfere
with the order of the quasi-judicial authority, if it is not
Page No.195
TET (GROUP).doc
supported by any evidence or if the order is passed in
contravention of the statutory provisions of the law or in
violation of the principles of natural justice, the court has no
jurisdiction to quash the order merely on the ground that the
evidence available on record is insufficient or inadequate or on
the ground that different view could possibly be taken on the
evidence available on the record. The Examination Committee
has jurisdiction to take decision in the matter of use of unfair
means not only on direct evidence but also on probabilities and
circumstantial evidence. There is no scope for importing the
principles of criminal trial while considering the probative value
of probabilities and circumstantial evidence. The Examination
Committee is not bound by technical rules of evidence and
procedure as are applicable to courts. We respectfully agree with
the ratio.
30………..
31……….
32……….
33………
34………..
35…………
36……….
37. It is thus well settled law that strict rules of the Evidence Act,
and the standard of proof envisaged therein do not apply to
departmental proceedings or domestic tribunal. It is open to the
authorities to receive and place on record all the necessary,
relevant, cogent and acceptable material facts though not proved
strictly in conformity with the Evidence Act. The material must
be germane and relevant to the facts in issue. In grave cases like
forgery, fraud, conspiracy, misappropriation, etc. seldom direct
evidence would be available. Only the circumstantial evidence
would furnish the proof. In our considered view inference from
the evidence and circumstances must be carefully distinguished
from conjectures or speculation. The mind is prone to take
pleasure to adapt circumstances to one another and even in
straining them a little to force them to form parts of one
connected whole. There must be evidence direct or
circumstantial to deduce necessary inferences in proof of the
facts in issue. There can be no inferences unless there are
objective facts, direct or circumstantial from which to infer the
Page No.196
TET (GROUP).doc
other fact which it is sought to establish. In some cases the other
facts can be inferred, as much as is practical, as if they had been
actually observed. In other cases the inferences do not go beyond
reasonable probability. If there are no positive proved facts, oral,
documentary or circumstantial from which the inferences can be
made the method of inference fails and what is left is mere
speculation or conjecture. Therefore, when an inference of proof
that a fact in dispute has been held established there must be
some material facts or circumstances on record from which such
an inference could be drawn. The standard of proof is not proof
beyond reasonable doubt "but" the preponderance of
probabilities tending to draw an inference that the fact must be
more probable. Standard of proof cannot be put in a straight -
jacket formula. No mathematical formula could be laid on degree
of proof. The probative value could be gauged from facts and
circumstances in a given case. The standard of proof is the same
both in civil cases and domestic enquiries.
153. In Hanuman Prasad And Others vs. Union of India & Anr.56,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 4 observed as under
“4. It is then contended that though the selected candidates
have no vested right, they had got a legitimate expectation for
appointment when they were selected for being appointed.
They should be given prior opportunity and also know the
reasons for cancellation. In support of this contention, he
placed reliance on para 8 of the judgment of this Court in Asha
Kaul v. State of J&K (1993) 2 SCC 573. It is unexceptionable
that when duly constituted selection committee makes
recommendation for appointment of the selected candidates
the candidates do not get any vested right or legitimate
expectation until they are appointed according to the Rules;
they have a chance to be appointed as they have been selected
by the recruitment agency. In that case, the Government had
cancelled the select list without any reasons. This Court has
laid the above rule in that backdrop. The ratio therein has no
application for the reason that after the perusal of the report
submitted by the investigating agency, the competent authority
56 (1996) 10 SCC 742
Page No.197
TET (GROUP).doc
had cancelled the selection so that the regular and proper
examination could be conducted giving opportunity to
everyone in a fair manner. No prior opportunity need be given
in the case of mass copying. It is not the case where a named
candidate committed copying. Accordingly, we do not find any
illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal.”
154. In the case of Ram Preeti Yadav vs. U.P. Board of High
School and Intermediate Education and Others57 in paragraphs 20
and 21 it is observed as under :
“20. As regards the submission of the learned counsel to the
effect that the first respondent should be directed to give an
opportunity of hearing to Respondent 3 at this stage cannot be
acceded to. As noticed hereinbefore, it is the positive case of the
first respondent that an opportunity of hearing had been given
to him by the first respondent. Secondly, in a case of mass
copying the principles of natural justice need not be strictly
complied with.
21. In Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. v. Abhilash Shiksha
Prasar Samiti (1998) 9 SCC 236 this Court observed: (SCC p.
237, para 2)
"In the face of this material, we do not see any justification
in the High Court having interfered with the decision taken
by the Board to treat the examination as cancelled. It is
unfortunate that the student community resorts to such
methods to succeed in examinations and then some of
them come forward to contend that innocent students
become victims of such misbehaviour of their companions.
That cannot be helped. In such a situation the Board is left
with no alternative but to cancel the examination. It is
extremely difficult for the Board to identify the innocent
students from those indulging in malpractices. One may
feel sorry for the innocent students but one has to
appreciate the situation in which the Board was placed and
the alternatives that were available to it so far as this
examination was concerned. It had no alternative but to
57 (2003) 8 SCC 311
Page No.198
TET (GROUP).doc
cancel the results and we think, in the circumstances, they
were justified in doing so. This should serve as a lesson to
the students that such malpractices will not help them
succeed in the examination and they may have to go
through the drill once again. We also think that those in
charge of the examinations should also take action against
their supervisors/invigilators etc. who either permit such
activity or become silent spectators thereto. If they feel
insecure because of the strong-arm tactics of those who
indulge in malpractices, the remedy is to secure the
services of the uniformed personnel, if need be, and ensure
that students do not indulge in such malpractices.”
155. In the case of Director (Studies), Dr. Ambedkar Institute of
Hotel Management, Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh
and Other vs. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan58, in paragraph 27 observed as
under :-
“27. Before parting with this case, we would like to refer to the
decisions of this Court which has repeatedly held that the High
Court should not ordinarily interfere with the orders passed in
educational matters by domestic tribunals set up by educational
institutions vide Board of High School & Intermediate Education
v. Bangleshwar Prasad; AIR 1966 SC 875 (vide AIR para 12), J.
P. Kulshrestha (Dr.) v. Allahabad University (1980) 3 SCC 418
(Vide SCC para 17: AIR para17), Rajendra Prasad Mathur v.
Karnataka University; AIR 1986 SC 1448 (vide SCC para 7: AIR
para 7). We wish to reiterate the view taken in the above
decisions, and further state that the High Courts should not
ordinarily interfere with the functioning and orders of the
educational authorities unless there is clear violation of some
statutory rule or legal principle. Also, there must be strict purity
in the examinations of educational institutions and no sympathy
or leniency should be shown to candidates who resort to unfair
means in the examinations.”
58 (2009) 1 SCC 59
Page No.199
TET (GROUP).doc
156. In the case of Nidhi Kaim (supra), the whole law on this
subject was examined and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs
22, 26, 39 (39.1 to 39.6) 42-42.1 to 42.4, 44, 50 and 51 observed as
under:
22. The net result is that the entire exercise of holding PMT
and regulating the admissions of students into the various
medical colleges would be only an exercise of the executive
powers of the State of Madhya Pradesh. If the third respondent
Board is without any authority of law for taking the impugned
action, it is equally without any authority of law to conduct the
common entrance examination (PMT). Any admission based on
the marks obtained at such common entrance examination
would be equally without any authority of law in the sense of
legislative sanction. Whatever be the legal implications of the
exercise of such power vis-à-vis others (which we are not called
upon to examine in these appeals), the appellants cannot be
heard saying that the Board has no authority of law to take
action against them because they had appeared for the said
examination and taken the benefit of securing admissions into
the various medical colleges on the basis of the marks obtained
by them in the examination.
26. This Court in Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas
Chandra Singh, (1970) 1 SCC 648 laid down the principle that
the rule of audi alteram partem need not be complied with in
connection with the cancellation of examinations where it
would be impracticable to apply the said principle. Adoption of
unfair means on a large scale is one of them. This Court did not
go by the percentage of the students who were alleged to have
had resorted to the practice of unfair means. When this Court
characterised the situation as practice of unfair means on a
“large scale”, it used the expression only to distinguish the
situation from cases of practice of unfair means by one or two
students. This Court has also held that there are other
circumstances justifying the departure from complying with the
audi alteram partem rule. They are leakage of question papers
and destruction of a large number of answer papers. In my
Page No.200
TET (GROUP).doc
opinion, the examples given therein are not exhaustive of all
the categories constituting exceptions to the application of the
rule of audi alteram partem. Therefore, the percentage of the
students who are alleged to have resorted to unfair means is
irrelevant. Similarly, resorting to unfair means by a “large
number of students” is not the only circumstance which
justifies the non-compliance with the rule of audi alteram
partem.
27…………
28…………..
29……….
30………..
31………….
32……….
33………..
34………….
35………….
36……………
37………..
38………..
39. Sinha Case judgment, in my view, yields the following
principles :
39.1. Where there are allegations that students resorted to
"unfair means on a large scale" at an examination, this Court
would not insist upon registration of a formal complaint. Any
reliable information suggesting the occurrence of such
malpractice in the examination is sufficient to authorise the
examining body to take action because examining bodies are
"responsible for their standards and the conduct of
examinations" and "the essence of the examination is that the
worth of every person is appraised without any assistance from
an outside source".
39.2. A lone circumstance could itself be sufficient in a given
case for the examining body to record a conclusion that the
students resorted to "unfair means on a large scale" in an
examination. This Court approved the conclusion of the Bihar
School Examination Board that the students had resorted to
unfair means on a large scale in one examination centre and
also approved the decision-making process of the Board on the
basis of circumstantial evidence. The lone circumstance that the
Page No.201
TET (GROUP).doc
success rate of the students who appeared for the examination
from the centre in question is too high in comparison to other
centres.
39.3. In such cases, the examining body need not hold "a
detailed quasi-judicial inquiry with a right to its alumni to
plead and lead evidence, etc." and the examining body's
"appreciation of the problem must be respected."
39.4. To insist on the observance of the principles of natural
justice i.e. giving notice to each student and holding enquiry
before cancelling the examination in such cases would "hold up
the functioning" of the educational institutions which are
responsible for maintenance of the standards of education, and
"encourage indiscipline, if not, also perjury".
39.5. Compliance with the rule of audi alteram partem is not
necessary not only in the cases of employment of "unfair means
on large scale" but also situations where there is a "leakage of
papers" or "destruction of some of the answer books", etc.
39.6. This Court drew a distinction between action against an
individual student on the ground that the student had resorted
to unfair means in the examination and the cancellation of the
examination on the whole (or with reference to a group of
students) because the process itself is vitiated.
40………
41………..
42. From an analysis of the above decisions, the following
principles emerge:
42.1. Normally, the rule of audi alteram partem must be
scrupulously followed in the case of the cancellation of the
examinations of students on the ground that they had resorted
to unfair means (copying) at the examinations.
42.2. But the abovementioned principle is not applicable to the
cases where unfair means were adopted by a relatively large
number of students and also to certain other situations where
either the examination process is vitiated or for reasons beyond
the control of both students and the examining body, it would
be unfair or impracticable to continue the examination process
to insist upon the compliance with audi alteram partem rule.
Page No.202
TET (GROUP).doc
42.3. The fact that unfair means were adopted by students at
an examination could be established by circumstantial
evidence.
42.4. The scope of judicial review of the decision of an
examining body is very limited. If there is some reasonable
material before the body to come to the conclusion that unfair
means were adopted by the students on a large scale, neither
such conclusion nor the evidence forming the basis thereof
could be subjected to scrutiny on the principles governing the
assessment of evidence in a criminal court.
43. ……………
44. In the light of the principles of law emerging from scrutiny
of the abovementioned judgments, we are of the opinion that
the case on hand can fall within the category of exceptions to
the rule of audi alteram partem if there is reliable material to
come to the conclusion that the examination process is vitiated.
That leads me to the next question whether the material relied
upon by the Board for reaching the conclusion that the
examination process was contaminated insofar as the
appellants (and also some more students) are concerned and
the appellants are the beneficiaries of such contaminated
process, is tenable?
45…………
46…………..
47……….
48………..
49………….
50. Even otherwise, in my opinion, it would be futile to
pursue the inquiry in this regard. Assuming for the sake of
argument that the submission of the appellants is right and
there are some cases (of the appellants) where the appellants
can demonstrate (if an opportunity is given to them) that the
circumstantial evidence is not foolproof and therefore, the
impugned order must be set aside on the ground of failure of
natural justice, the Board would still be entitled (in fact it
would be obliged in view of the allegation of systematic
tampering with the examination process year after year) in law
to conduct afresh enquiry after giving notice to each of the
appellants. That would mean spending enormous time both by
the Board and by the appellants for the enquiry and the
Page No.203
TET (GROUP).doc
consequential (inevitable) litigation regarding the correctness
of the eventual decision of the Board.
51. For the abovementioned reasons, I do not propose to
interfere with the impugned judgment on the count that the
rule of audi alteram partem was not complied with by the
respondents before cancelling the admissions of the appellants
herein.
157. The following paragraphs of the decision in the case of
Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) (supra) are relevant :-
2. The appellants before us are the selectees, some of whom have been
working for over five years. They fall into two categories:
(i) selectees with purported evidence and material indicating
wrongdoing, and
(ii) other selectees who claim that they were validly selected and
have committed no wrongdoing.
The State of West Bengal and WBSSC have also challenged the
impugned judgment.
3. The respondents before us are the writ petitioners who have
succeeded before the High Court at Calcutta. Central Bureau of
Investigation (hereinafter “CBI”) which had carried out the
investigation pursuant to the directions given by the High Court at
Calcutta is also arraigned as a respondent. [ Diary No. 21281 of 2024,
SLPs (C) Nos. 16643-45, 18366, 11721, 14331, 22110, 25078 of
2024, etc.]
4. The implicated selectees have challenged the judgment [Baishakhi
Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) v. State of W.B., 2024 SCC OnLine Cal
3862] on the following main grounds: First, that the evidence against
them is weak, unproven and inadmissible. Second, they were
punished without an inquiry, violating the principles of natural justice.
Third, while they were charge-sheeted, they have not been convicted
and should be treated as innocent. The other selectees, the State of
West Bengal, and WBSSC argue that the High Court erred by
annulling the entire selection process based on CBI report and should
have only cancelled the appointments of those found guilty, leaving
the other appointments intact.
35. The following principles emerge from the aforesaid discussion:
(i) When an in-depth factual inquiry reveals systemic irregularities,
such as malaise or fraud, that undermine the integrity of the entire
Page No.204
TET (GROUP).doc
selection process, the result should be cancelled in its entirety.
However, if and when possible, segregation of tainted and
untainted candidates should be done in consonance with fairness
and equity.
(ii) The decision to cancel the selection en masse must be based on
the satisfaction derived from sufficient material collected through a
fair and thorough investigation. It is not necessary for the material
collected to conclusively prove malpractice beyond a reasonable
doubt. The standard of evidence should be reasonable certainty of
systemic malaise. The probability test is applicable.
(iii) Despite the inconvenience caused to untainted candidates,
when broad and deep manipulation in the selection process is
proven, due weightage has to be given to maintaining the purity of
the selection process.
(iv) Individual notice and hearing may not be necessary in all cases
for practical reasons when the facts establish that the entire
selection process is vitiated with illegalities at a large scale.
59. It is also submitted by the tainted candidates that the certificate
under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter “the
Evidence Act”) is inadmissible and thus, the said data is unreliable. In
our opinion, the issues of authenticity of the data viz. the mismatch
between the datasets and the admissibility of the certificate under
Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, need not be decided in these
proceedings, as it falls under the purview of the criminal court.
However, suffice it to state that the Evidence Act does not strictly
apply to the proceedings in a writ court, and the decision is rendered
based on the evidence and material on record. Further, the issue
involved in the present case is different and one relating to the purity
and sanctity of the selection process. Therefore, the Court can rely
upon the contradictory pleas taken by the tainted and the untainted
candidates. In the given facts and circumstances, the failure of WBSSC
to keep scanned/mirror copies of the OMR sheets assumes great
importance.
60. Further, it is clear that there is a discrepancy between the scanned
OMR sheets recovered from the three hard disks in Pankaj Bansal's
possession and the marks recorded in WBSSC's computer/records.
This discrepancy has been acknowledged and accepted by WBSSC.
61. The claim that the data on the three hard disks shows no
interpolation and is consistent with the data in M/s Data Scantech
Solutions' computers fails to account for significant gaps and
discrepancies. These issues, highlighted in both the impugned
judgment and our findings, clearly point to large-scale manipulation
and tampering with results, including rank-jumping, discrepancies in
Page No.205
TET (GROUP).doc
marks, the issuance of appointment letters to candidates not on the
panel, and appointments made beyond the panel's validity period.
65. We have already partially addressed the plea of failure to adhere
to the principles of natural justice while examining the applicable case
law. It is also important to emphasise that, in this case, public notices
were issued, and the candidates/applicants/petitioners were afforded
the opportunity to inspect the data and present their arguments. In
light of the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the principles
of natural justice cannot be invoked to validate the fraud that has
occurred. These principles are not rigid or inflexible; rather, they must
be applied with due regard to the specific facts and circumstances at
hand.
158. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central
Information Commission (supra) was concerned with the provisions
under the RTI Act which are akin to Section 23(1)(t) and other
provisions of the 1998 Act and the relevant paragraphs are as
under :-
17. The absence of an explicit provision for Benches does not negate
the CIC's authority to constitute them, as such powers are implicitly
included within the scope of the CIC's general superintendence and
management responsibilities. The broad language of the RTI Act
indicates an intention to grant the CIC comprehensive authority to
ensure the effective and efficient functioning of the Commission. The
Delhi High Court's narrow reading of the provisions overlooked the
inherent powers of the CIC to manage the affairs of the Commission.
The RTI Act's broad language suggests that the legislative intent was
to provide the CIC with the necessary authority to implement
measures that ensure the Commission's effective operation.
18. In the present case, the RTI Act should be interpreted purposively,
taking into account the broader objectives of the legislation. The
purpose of the RTI Act is to promote transparency and accountability
in the functioning of public authorities, ensuring citizens' right to
information. To achieve these objectives effectively, it is essential that
the Central Information Commission operates efficiently and without
undue procedural constraints. The principle of purposive
interpretation supports the view that the CIC's powers under Section
12(4) of the RTI Act include all necessary measures to manage and
Page No.206
TET (GROUP).doc
direct the Commission's affairs effectively. This includes the ability to
form Benches to handle the increasing volume of cases. The
formation of Benches allows for the efficient allocation of work and
ensures the timely disposal of cases, which is crucial for upholding
the right to information.
19. Furthermore, the High Court's reliance on the absence of explicit
provisions for Benches overlooks the broad language of Sections
12(4) and 15(4) of the RTI Act, which grants the CIC and State Chief
Information Commissioners wide-ranging powers to manage their
respective Commissions' affairs. The legislative intent, as reflected by
the broad language of these provisions, was to provide these officials
with the necessary authority to ensure that their Commissions
function effectively and efficiently. These provisions explicitly use the
words “superintendence, direction and management” of the affairs of
the Commission. There have been various landmark judgments of
this Court which have interpreted the words “superintendence,
direction, and control” occurring in Article 324(1) of the Constitution
in respect of the Election Commission.
22. Therefore, the use of the words “superintendence, direction and
management” in Sections 12(4) and 15(4) of the RTI Act clearly
provides the CIC an ambit of power wide enough to frame its own
Regulations and to delegate its power to a committee formed by it.
The Central Information Commission, utilising these broad powers,
has enacted “the Central Information Commission (Management)
Regulations, 2007”. While the RTI Act does not explicitly grant CIC
the authority to frame Regulations, the overarching powers granted
under Section 12(4) of the RTI Act inherently include the ability to
manage the Commission's affairs effectively. These Regulations are
essential tools for ensuring the efficient administration and operation
of the Commission, addressing various procedural and managerial
aspects necessary for fulfilling its mandate. Focusing narrowly on the
nomenclature and the absence of an explicit provision for regulation-
making within the RTI Act would undermine the broader purpose
and intent of the same. The nomenclature used to describe these
Regulations should not detract from their necessity and their role in
facilitating the Commission's functioning. A purposive interpretation
of Section 12(4) of the RTI Act reveals that the powers of
“superintendence, direction and management” are intended to be
comprehensive, enabling the CIC to adopt measures, including the
framing of Regulations, that ensure transparency, accountability, and
efficient handling of its responsibilities. Thus, the creation of these
Regulations is not only justified but crucial for the CIC to manage its
workload and operational demands effectively, thereby serving the
Page No.207
TET (GROUP).doc
core objectives of the RTI Act.
159. In Ansar Afzal Munniwale & Anr vs. State of Maharashtra
& Ors.59. Paragraph 6 reads as under :-
6. The opposition of the State that those candidates involved in
examination scams should not be allowed to participate in the process
of selection of teachers raises a broader issue which goes beyond
statutory qualifications. Teachers play a crucial role in shaping young,
impressionable minds. They not only impart academic knowledge, but
instill fundamental values of morality, ethics, and civic sense. These
values are the very foundation of an orderly society. When an
individual engages in cheating in an examination or in a fraudulent
scheme such conduct may demonstrate a lack of moral conviction and
an absence of the essential value system required to nurture and
educate future citizens. When such a person seeks a teaching position,
it raises serious concerns. This aspect is especially important when
writ jurisdiction is invoked. Broad societal considerations are also
relevant when a petitioner calls a superior court to exercise its writ
jurisdiction. The mere absence of a legal embargo for a course of
action does not necessarily mean that relief under writ jurisdiction
should automatically be extended in favour of the petitioner. Writ
jurisdiction is a discretionary remedy. The superior court can refuse to
extend its equity jurisdiction in a given case. There is a distinction
between legal qualifications and the broader moral and ethical
implications of appointing individuals who may lack the integrity
necessary to fulfill the responsibilities of a teacher. The impact on
society, especially on young minds, has to be at the forefront of any
judicial consideration. There is one more angle to the issue. It is
common knowledge that there are a large number of applicants and
limited posts, and there is competition for the posts. Therefore, the
candidates who are not tainted can make a grievance that they have
been asked to unfairly compete with those who are tainted.
160. In State of Maharashtra vs. Prabhu (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in paragraph 4 observed as under :-
4. Even assuming that the construction placed by the High Court and
vehemently defended by the learned counsel for respondent is correct
59 Writ Petition No.9826 of 2024 dtd. 06.09.2026
Page No.208
TET (GROUP).doc
should the High Court have interfered with the order of Government
in exercise of its equity jurisdiction. The distinction between writs
issued as a matter of right such as habeas corpus and those issued in
exercise of discretion such as certiorari and mandamus are well
known and explained in countless decisions given by this Court and
English Courts. It is not necessary to recount them. The High Courts
exercise control over Government functioning and ensure obedience of
rules and law by enforcing proper, fair and just performance of duty.
Where the Government or any authority passes an order which is
contrary to rules or law it becomes amenable to correction by the
courts in exercise of writ jurisdiction. But one of the principles
inherent in it is that the exercise of power should be for the sake of
justice. One of the yardstick for it is if the quashing of the order results
in greater harm to the society then the court may restrain from
exercising the power.
161. In Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav & Ors. vs. Karamveer Kakasaheb
Wagh Education Society & Ors. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in paragraphs 46 and 47 observed as under :-
46. More recently, in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India [(2010) 14
SCC 38 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 889] the case law on the subject was
discussed. It was held that if a litigant does not come to the court with
clean hands, he is not entitled to be heard and indeed, such a person
is not entitled to any relief from any judicial forum. It was said: (SCC
p. 51, para 21)
“21. The principle that a person who does not come to the court
with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his
grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief
is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226
and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in
others courts and judicial forums. The object underlying the
principle is that every court is not only entitled but is duty-bound to
protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any
respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by
resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing
facts which have a bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in
the case.”
47. A mere reference to the order dated 2-5-2003, en passant, in the
order dated 24-7-2006 does not serve the requirement of disclosure. It
is not for the court to look into every word of the pleadings,
Page No.209
TET (GROUP).doc
documents and annexures to fish out a fact. It is for the litigant to
come upfront and clean with all material facts and then, on the basis
of the submissions made by the learned counsel, leave it to the court
to determine whether or not a particular fact is relevant for arriving at
a decision. Unfortunately, the petitioners have not done this and must
suffer the consequence thereof.
162. In the case of State of UP vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad
Singh60, Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 53 and 54 observed as
under :-
53. It is erroneous to equate the powers under Sections 14 and 15 of
the Act with judicial power which, in the absence of express
provisions, could not enable the review of a judicial order after its
exercise on the principle of functus officio. In Sardul Singh v. District
Food and Supplies Controller, Patiala [ Writ Petition No. 126 of 1962,
decided on 19-12-1962] a statutory order, promulgated under Section
3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, contained a provision
enabling the cancellation of a “permit” under certain circumstances.
The contention was that Section 3 of the parent “Act” itself did not
delegate to the subordinate legislative authority to make such a
provision for cancellation and, therefore, the provision for cancellation
in the subordinate legislature was ultra vires. There was no provision
in the Act expressly conferring the power to make a provision for
cancellation of the permit. Section 3(2)(d) of the parent Act merely
enabled the Government to make orders “for regulating by licences,
permits or otherwise, the storage, transport, distribution, disposal,
acquisition, use or consumption of any essential commodity” and
Section 3(2)(j) merely enabled Government to make orders for
incidental and supplementary matters (emphasis supplied). The
question arose whether provisions for cancellation of the permits
envisaged in para 10 of the particular statutory order could be said to
be relatable to or justified as a matter incidental or supplementary to
regulation. This Court held that the power to cancel was an
“incidental and supplementary” matter. It was held:
“If a trade in an essential commodity like coal is to be regulated by
licences or permits, it is obvious that the power to grant licences or
permits must include the power to cancel or suspend such licences
or permits as an ‘incidental or supplementary matter’; otherwise,
60 (1989) 2 SCC 505
Page No.210
TET (GROUP).doc
the very purpose of Section 3 of the Act would be frustrated.”
54. Indeed, the submissions of Shri Thakur on the point contemplate
the exercise of the power to cancel or revoke the permission in three
distinct situations. The first is where the grant is itself vitiated by
fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the grantee at the time of
obtaining the grant. To the second situation belong the class of cases
where the grantee, after the grant violates the essential terms and
conditions subject to which the grant is made. In these two areas, the
power to grant must be held to include the power to revoke or cancel
the permit, even in the absence of any other express statutory
provisions in that behalf. There must, of course be the compliance
with the requirements of natural justice and the grounds must be such
as would justify such drastic action. This cancellation is a preventive
step. The one aspect of the remedial measures is set out in Section 27
of the Act. There may be cases of third kind where the grant may be
voidable at the instance of the Development Authority or otherwise
entitling the Development Authority to initiate appropriate declaratory
or other action to get rid of the effect of the permission.
163. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.61 in paragraph 18 observed as under :-
18. It is well settled that when a power is given to an authority to do
something it includes such incidental or implied powers which would
ensure the proper doing of that thing. In other words, when any
power is expressly granted by the statute, there is impliedly included
in the grant, even without special mention, every power and every
control the denial of which would render the grant itself ineffective.
Thus where an Act confers jurisdiction it impliedly also grants the
power of doing all such acts or employ such means as are essentially
necessary for its execution.
164. In Budhia Swain & Ors. vs. Gopinath Deb & Ors. 62 in
paragraphs 8 and 9 observed as under :-
8. In our opinion a tribunal or a court may recall an order
earlier made by it if
61 (2008) 2 SCC 409
62 (1999) 4 SCC 396
Page No.211
TET (GROUP).doc
(i) the proceedings culminating into an order suffer from
the inherent lack of jurisdiction and such lack of
jurisdiction is patent,
(ii) there exists fraud or collusion in obtaining the
judgment,
(iii) there has been a mistake of the court prejudicing a
party, or
(iv) a judgment was rendered in ignorance of the fact
that a necessary party had not been served at all or had
died and the estate was not represented.
The power to recall a judgment will not be exercised
when the ground for reopening the proceedings or
vacating the judgment was available to be pleaded in the
original action but was not done or where a proper
remedy in some other proceeding such as by way of
appeal or revision was available but was not availed. The
right to seek vacation of a judgment may be lost by
waiver, estoppel or acquiescence.
9. A distinction has to be drawn between lack of
jurisdiction and a mere error in exercise of jurisdiction. The
former strikes at the very root of the exercise and want of
jurisdiction may vitiate the proceedings rendering them
and the orders passed therein a nullity. A mere error in
exercise of jurisdiction does not vitiate the legality and
validity of the proceedings and the order passed thereon
unless set aside in the manner known to law by laying a
challenge subject to the law of limitation. In Hira Lal Patni
v. Kali Nath [AIR 1962 SC 199] it was held:
“The validity of a decree can be challenged in execution
proceedings only on the ground that the court which
passed the decree was lacking in inherent jurisdiction in
the sense that it could not have seisin of the case because
the subject-matter was wholly foreign to its jurisdiction
or that the defendant was dead at the time the suit had
been instituted or decree passed, or some such other
ground which could have the effect of rendering the
court entirely lacking in jurisdiction in respect of the
subject-matter of the suit or over the parties to it.”
Page No.212
TET (GROUP).doc
Issue No. 2 :
Whether respondents - State and Maharashtra Council of
Examination / Education were justified in permanently
debarring the petitioners from appearing for TET
examination without following the principles of natural
justice ?
165. Commissioner of the Maharashtra State Examination
Council in his order dated 3 August 2022 has cancelled the results of
around 7,880 candidates without issuing show cause notice to them.
It was further ordered that these candidates would be permanently
debarred from appearing in the TET exams. Admittedly and
undisputedly before debarring these candidates permanently, no
show cause notice was issued to enable these candidates to give
“their say” on the proposed permanent debarment. Therefore, the
question arises whether such a punishment / penalty of permanently
debarring an individual to appear for TET exams could have been
ordered / passed without giving any show cause notice. There is no
dispute amongst the parties and also based on reading of various
correspondences between the State and the Council that permanent
debarring is nothing but a penalty / punishment as a deterrent
measure to avoid any occurrence of such events in future.
Page No.213
TET (GROUP).doc
166. It is settled law that principle of natural justice has to be
followed by all the authorities before passing order imposing
penalty / punishment unless the case falls in the exceptions to make
out a ground for denial of the opportunity of hearing. Even if
provision does not contemplate of hearing same should be read into
it when it comes to imposing punishment / penalty. The present
case, in our view, does not fall within the exception to deny
pre-decisional hearing insofar as penalty / punishment is concerned.
It is not a case of national security or having grave repercussions
which could not have waited till the punitive action is taken by
complying with the principles of natural justice. The issue of
punishment / penalty, in our view, should have been considered by
the respondents after following basic principles of natural justice
which are applicable before imposing any punishment / penalty. The
respondents have not made out any case or submissions on imposing
penalty / punishment without giving any hearing. This issue stands
on a different footing than issue relating to cancellation of results
which we have already dealt with in earlier paragraphs.
167. The Rule of Audi Alteram Partem was first applied in
human history in the Garden of Eden.
“I remember to have heard it observed by a very learned man
upon such an occasion, that even God himself did not pass
Page No.214
TET (GROUP).doc
sentence upon Adam, before he was called upon to make his
defence. “Adam, says God, where art thou? Hast thou not eaten
of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not
eat?’ And the same question was put to Eve also.”
168. Right to fair hearing is a basic constitutional right given to
the citizens of this country for defending themselves against any
proposed action of punishment or penalty. In our country, where Rule
of Law prevails even a foreign terrorist who had killed innocent
people in front of everyone was given final punishment only after a
fair trial of hearing right up to the highest Court and by following
due process of law. Even in criminal trial, after conviction is ordered,
separate hearing is accorded to the convict on sentence of
punishment. In our view, present proceedings being civil proceedings
would stand on high pedestal and the punishment / penalty could
not have been imposed without giving hearing by one stroke of pen.
169. In the instant case, respondents should have given the
petitioners, before permanently debarring them, a fair pre-decisional
hearing so that the principle of natural justice could have been
complied with. In our view, respondents have not made out any case
for not complying with the basic principles of natural justice before
permanently debarring the petitioners. By the impugned punishment
/ penalty rights of the candidates have been permanently taken away
without giving them any hearing on the quantum of punishment,
Page No.215
TET (GROUP).doc
which action of non-compliance of natural justice, in our view is very
harsh, unfair and unreasonable.
170. The basic principles which are required to be followed
before imposing any punishment / penalty is to issue show cause
notice to the person against whom action is sought to be taken and to
specifically bring to his notice the allegations and the provisions
under which the proposed action is sought to be taken. After the
issuance of such a show cause notice, the noticee is required to be
given sufficient time to file his submissions / say to the proposed
action. The noticee is then required to file his objections /
submissions / say and seek, if required, personal hearing. The
authority issuing a notice should give a personal hearing and also
consider the say of the noticee and thereafter pass a speaking order
either dropping the show cause notice or imposing punishment /
penalty. Such an order should consider all the submissions of the
noticee and also the reasons for rejecting such submissions and for
imposing penalty / punishment.
171. In our view, basic principles narrated above have been
given a go-by and totally disregarded by the respondents before
imposing a punishment of permanently debarring the petitioners
from appearing for TET exams. In our view, therefore, the impugned
Page No.216
TET (GROUP).doc
orders / communications to the extent it permanently debars
petitioners from appearing for TET exams without following the basic
principles of natural justice and the procedure prescribed above is
unfair, unreasonable and unconstitutional.
172. The imposition of a penalty / punishment by an
administrative authority is governed by two distinct but related sets
of requirements:
(A) procedural requirements that govern how the authority
must arrive at its decision and
(B) substantive requirements that govern what the decision
may contain including quantum, proportionality etc.
A penalty order that satisfies (B) but violates (A) is void for
breach of natural justice and a penalty order that satisfies (A) but
violates (B) is liable to be struck down as disproportionate or
unreasoned. Both limbs must be satisfied. In our view, both these
basic requirements have not been satisfied in the instant case nor any
case is made out for giving a go-by. We are conscious of the
malpractice committed by none other than teachers but still it cannot
be a ground of non-complying with natural justice even if the
malpractice is admitted, at least for imposing penalty / punishment.
173. Following five sequential steps should be followed before
imposing a penalty / punishment :-
Page No.217
TET (GROUP).doc
(i) The person must be told with reasonable particularity
what is alleged against him ;
(ii) Any evidence, enquiry report or document, the
authority intends to use against the person must be
shown to him ;
(iii) Written or oral opportunity to explain / define should
be given to the noticee. Such opportunity must be a
genuine hearing and not an empty formality ;
(iv) The decision-maker should be unbiased ; and
(v) The order of penalty should be a reasoned and speaking
order which can be tested in appeal / judicial review.
The above steps have been culled out based on the
following decisions :-
(a) Canara Bank & Ors. vs Debasis Das & Ors.63
(b) Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India64 and
(c) Attorney General vs. Thomas d’Arcy Ryan65
174. Even an administrative power imposing penalty /
punishment should be exercised by following principles of natural
justice. The right of a man to be given a fair opportunity of hearing of
what is alleged against him and of presenting his own case is so
fundamental to any civilised legal system that it is to be presumed
that the legislature intended that a failure to observe it would render
null and void any decision reached in breach of this requirement. The
63 2003 SCC OnLine SC 378
64 1978 SCC OnLine SC 25
65 [1980] 2 W.L.R. 143
Page No.218
TET (GROUP).doc
administrative body should act fairly towards the persons who will be
affected by their decisions.
175. In the instant case, in addition to no opportunity of hearing
being given to the petitioners before permanently debarring, it is
relevant to note that none of these petitioners have been made
accused in any criminal proceedings initiated on account of the
alleged TET scam. However, we are shown statements of certain
candidates recorded by the police authorities wherein they have
admitted of their marks having tampered with and also in some cases
monetary gratification has been admitted. The persons whose names
appear in FIR / charge-sheet have been accorded fair hearing while
deciding their bail applications but the petitioners who have been
punished were not given fair pre-decisional hearing. This also leads
us to come to a conclusion that principles of natural justice ought to
have been followed. The sheer number of candidates cannot be a
ground to deny fair hearing when it comes to imposing penalty /
punishment of permanent debarment.
176. In the impugned communication dated 10 June 2022
issued by respondent No.1-State to respondent no.3 – Commissioner
of Council, it was directed that action should be taken for
cancellation of the candidates performance, permanently debarring
Page No.219
TET (GROUP).doc
them from appearing for TET exams or to impose appropriate
penalties in accordance with law and no approval of the Government
would be required. In our view, such a drastic directions by the State
to the Commissioner without following principles of natural justice
severely affects the livelihood of these candidates and thereby
violates fundamental rights granted by the Constitution of India.
Such a procedure is unconstitutional and unreasonable since basic
principles of natural justice of giving opportunity of hearing to these
petitioners have not been followed. The said impugned
communication nowhere directs the authorities not to follow
principles of natural justice but it only states governments approval is
not required.
177. In the above impugned communication, respondent-State
has also directed the Commissioner that Shalarth ID of the candidates
working in Zilla Parishad, aided / partially aided / unaided schools
should be frozen and action should be taken to withhold their salary
and for terminating their services and further direct the management
to pass formal orders in this regard after following due process. As
per the said communication, management / respondents were to take
action by giving hearing pending freezing of salary but on account of
interim orders, inquiry could not be proceeded with. In our view, no
Page No.220
TET (GROUP).doc
relief can be accorded on this count till the inquiry is completed
against teachers in service. Further freezing of salary and Shalarth ID
pending inquiry cannot be treated as final penalty / punishment.
178. In the impugned order dated 3rd August 2022, there is a
reference to the earlier communication of the State dated 10 th June
2022 and the results of the petitioners were cancelled. In addition to
the cancellation, the petitioners were permanently debarred from
appearing in future TET exam. Even in this order, there is no
reference of the basic principles of natural justice having been
followed before permanently debarring the petitioners from
appearing TET exams. In our view, even this order is contrary to basic
principles of natural justice and is unconstitutional in so far as
penalty / punishment is concerned. We make it clear that it is not our
suggestion that such penalty should not have been levied but the
process adopted for levying the penalty is what we have not approved
of.
179. Similar issue had come up for consideration before the
Patna High Court in the case of Prabhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar &
Ors66. This was also a case of teachers’ competitive examination held
in which certain malpractices were found to have occurred and the
petitioners were permanently debarred from appearing in the
66 Civil Writ Petition No. 7615 of 2024 dated 17.04.2025
Page No.221
TET (GROUP).doc
examination on the ground that they had indulged in impersonation
in the examination. The Patna High Court in paragraph no. 18,
quashed such order on the ground of breach of principle of natural
justice as the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain his
side of the case when the order of permanently debarring was
communicated to the petitioner which would adversely affect the
petitioner. The relevant paragraph no. 18 reads as under :-
“After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is
in complete agreement with the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the
impugned notice and the memo have been issued in complete
breach of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was
not given any opportunity to explain his side of the case when
the impugned notice and memo are having severe penal
consequences as the petitioner has been debarred from
appearing in any future examinations and the said debarment
has been communicated to various Commissions across the
country, which is adversely affecting the petitioner as he is not
in a position to appear in any of the examinations conducted by
any of the Commissions across the country. The Court is
completely dissatisfied with the plea of the Commission taken
in the counter-affidavit and completely fails to appreciate the
stand of the BPSC that merely based on an information by an
agency, the aforesaid notice and the memo were issued behind
the back of the petitioner.”
(emphasis supplied)
180. In our view, this judgment supports the case of the
petitioners that the impugned order imposing permanent debarment
on the petitioners from appearing in the TET examination without
giving any hearing is bad in law.
Page No.222
TET (GROUP).doc
181. In the case of Dr. Manik Bhattacharya V. Ramesh Malik and
others67, President of the Board of Primary Education was removed on
account of illegalities which occurred in recruitment process of
teachers through TET examination. In paragraph 15, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed that the order of removal of the
President of the Board was flawed since requirements of procedural
fairness which are necessary to direct removal of a person from a
public post were not followed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was of
the view that the principles of natural justice should have been
followed before removing the President. In the present case also,
decision of imposing punishment by permanently debarring the
petitioners from appearing for future TET examinations is flawed
since admittedly, principles of natural justice are not followed.
182. One of the submissions made by the petitioners that,
pending the present petitions, some of the teachers have qualified by
clearing CTET / TAIT or they were not required to take TET exam for
any other reason but still appeared and therefore, penalty should not
be imposed. In our view, the contention that merely because a
candidate has cleared CTET / TAIT pending the petition, or was not
required to clear the TET exam for any reason, but has appeared in
the exam, and therefore no penal action should be taken against
67 (2022) 17 SCC 781,
Page No.223
TET (GROUP).doc
them, cannot be accepted. The issue is not whether a person who
appeared for the examination was required to clear the examination.
The issue is whether such a candidate has indulged in malpractice.
This issue may be relevant for deciding quantum of punishment but it
cannot be a ground to submit that no penal action can be taken. The
penalty / punishment is for having committed malpractice and not
whether he exams though not required.
183. Merely because the person was not required to appear for
the exam but still has appeared, and his result is cancelled on the
ground of malpractice, cannot be a ground for not initiating penal
action. However, we have already quashed the punishment of
permanent debarment on ground of natural justice however, with
liberty to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance
with law, if they so desire, and all candidates can raise all permissible
contentions before the competent authority to defend themselves
against any proposed penal action.
184. The petitioners have raised various arguments on the issue
of penalty / punishment. However, we do not wish to express any
opinion on these submissions since we have set-aside the punishment
/ penalty only on the ground that no hearing has been given by the
authorities before imposing the penalty / punishment. Therefore, all
Page No.224
TET (GROUP).doc
the contentions of the petitioners are kept open to be agitated in
penalty proceedings, if initiated by the respondents.
185. We, therefore, set aside the penalty / punishment of
permanent debarment with liberty to respondents-State / Council to
initiate proceedings for imposing punishment / penalty in accordance
with law and after following principles of natural justice.
186. Now we propose to deal with decisions relied upon by the
parties.
187. Consideration of decisions relied upon by the petitioners :-
i. The decision in the case of Ghanshyam Das Gupta (supra), is
distinguishable on facts. In that case, the performance of only
three students was cancelled and they were debarred from
appearing in the examination of 1955. It was in this context of
three students that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had quashed
the order cancelling the results and debarring them on the
ground of natural justice. Much water has flown after this
decision and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again
till recently observed that in case of malpractices adopted on
mass scale in the examination, principle of natural justice need
not be followed. Furthermore, in the case of Ghanshyam Das
Gupta (supra), performance of only three students was
Page No.225
TET (GROUP).doc
cancelled whereas, in the instant case, performance of 7,880
candidates has been cancelled. In the present case, tampering
was done by altering the marks on a large scale. It is also
important to note that it was petitioners’ last attempt to clear
the examination and as observed above, petitioners’ have
impliedly accepted the tampering by not coming forward to
verify the marks as per the answer sheet with those printed on
mark sheet. Therefore, in our view, this decision cannot be of
any assistance for quashing the order of cancellation of
performance. However, it does support the case of the
petitioners that before imposing punishment of permanent
debarment, principles of natural justice were required to be
followed.
ii. The decision in the case of Tata Cellular (supra), has laid down
the scope of the judicial review by empowering the Court to
examine the decision-making process. However, the
parameters laid down therein have to be applied based on the
facts before the Court. The case of Tata Cellular (supra) was a
case of commercial tender whereas in the instant case, mass
malpractices have been adopted in the case of 7,880
candidates’ performance. The parameters required for deciding
the malpractices in examination and that too in the
Page No.226
TET (GROUP).doc
examination which qualifies a person to become eligible as a
teacher, has to be evaluated on different parameters and
moreso when there is implied admission of tampering and,
therefore, the guidelines laid down by the decision in the case
of Tata Cellular(supra), cannot be applied to the facts of the
present case by adopting straitjacket formula. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai
(Supra), and Delhi High Court in the case of Preeti Bhardwaj &
Others vs. Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University &
Others68, and Uttaranchal High Court in Ashish Bisht &
Another vs. State of Uttarakhand & Others69, had an occasion
to consider the decision of Tata Cellular (supra) while deciding
the issue of malpractices in examination and after considering
the said decision have restrained from interfering in the
examination matters.
iii. In the case of Shaikh Akbar Nabilal (supra) Shalarth IDs and
salary were frozen without following the procedure laid down
by Government Resolution dated 10 June 2022. The issue
before the Kolhapur Circuit Bench was not whether the TET
examination performance was cancelled. Once the
68 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5542
69 2020 SCC OnLine Utt 610
Page No.227
TET (GROUP).doc
performance of a candidate appearing in TET examination is
cancelled then the consequential order of freezing the salary
and Shalarth IDs pending enquiry need not follow the
principles of natural justice as per the Government Resolution
dated 10 June 2022. The said Government Resolution dealt
with issue of Shalarth ID obtained by fraud, etc. and
cancellation thereof with which we are not concerned. The
issue before us is cancellation of TET results which impliedly
have been admitted by the petitioners. Therefore, this decision
cannot be of any assistance to the petitioners and cannot be
made applicable in the light of facts of present case.
iv. The decision in the case of Chandrika Jha (supra) was relied
upon by the petitioners for the submission that higher
authority cannot issue direction to the lower authority for
passing the orders in a particular way. Based on admission of
petitioners tampering reliance placed on this decision before
the Constitutional Court is misconceived. In our view, this
decision would also not be of any assistance since the State
had only directed the Council to examine the malpractice and
take appropriate actions for imposing the penalty and also
consider for permanent debarment. The State did not direct
the Council to pass an order permanently debarring the tainted
Page No.228
TET (GROUP).doc
candidates. In any case, insofar as the penalty is concerned, we
have quashed on the ground of principle of natural justice and
therefore, this decision would not be of any assistance to the
petitioners. Insofar as cancellation of result is concerned, we
have already observed that there was sufficient material to
cancel the result by the authority who had issued the passing
certificate namely the Commissioner of the Council which we
have held is empowered to cancel the results.
v. The decision in the case of Vijay Singh (Supra) has been relied
upon the issue of penalty being permanent debarring the
petitioners from appearing in the exam. We have quashed the
punishment on the ground of natural justice and therefore, the
occasion does not arise for this Court to consider the said
decision.
vi. The decision in the case of Joint Action Committee of Air Line
Pilots’ Associations of India (ALPAI) (Supra) has been relied
upon by the petitioners for the proposition that the authority
which has been conferred with competence under statute alone
can pass the order. In the instant case, the order dated 3
August 2022 has been passed by the Commissioner of the
Maharashtra State Examination Council based on the
recommendation made by the Committee. Even though the
Page No.229
TET (GROUP).doc
Executive Committee was not in existence, the issue was
examined by the Committee and a resolution was passed
prescribing the penalty which was forwarded to the State
Council and the Commissioner who is the top most officer of
the Council passed the order. Even if executive committee have
been in existence the said Committee had to give its
recommendation to the State Council and the State Council
through the Commissioner would have passed the appropriate
order. In any case, we have observed that order is passed by
appropriate authority to cancel the passing certificate and
more particularly when the petitioners have accepted
tampering as observed by us. Therefore, in our view the said
decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present
case.
vii. In the case of Dr. M. S. Mudhol (Supra), the petitioners relied
upon the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the said case to the effect that if the Director of education has
illegally approved the appointment, although the candidate did
not have the requisite academic qualification and such a
person held a post for almost 12 years it would be inadvisable
to disturb him from the said post. In our view, this decision
cannot be of any assistance to the facts of the present case,
Page No.230
TET (GROUP).doc
wherein performance of 7,880 candidates have been tampered
with and cancellation is done within few months of scam and
within 1-½ year of the exam. If this decision is applied, then
it would be giving seal of approval to the candidates who have
admitted marks having tampered with. This Court cannot be a
party to such approval and therefore this decision cannot be
made applicable to the facts of the present case. This Court
based on present facts would not invoke its equitable
jurisdiction to condone such malpractice.
viii.The decision in the case of Pandurang Kanekar (supra) has
been relied on principle of natural justice. On the issue of
penalty, we have quashed permanent debarring on the ground
of natural justice. However, the said principle for the reasons
stated above cannot be applicable for the cancellation of
performance of the candidates whose names appeared in
regard to tampering of the marks and who have admitted the
guilt.
ix. Mr. Pakale, learned senior counsel has relied upon more than
17 decisions. These decisions are not applicable to the facts of
the present case. These decisions either deal with punishment
under service law or cancellation of result of one or a few
students or does not deal with cases of mass alteration of
Page No.231
TET (GROUP).doc
marks. There is no dispute on following of principles of natural
justice but same as observed by various decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court do not apply to cancellation of results
/ exams due to large scale malpractice and furthermore we
have held that petitioners have admitted tampering. Therefore,
these decisions cannot take the case of the petitioners any
further.
x. The decision relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Hina
Kausar Mohammad Riyaz (Supra) does not assist the
petitioners except in support of their submissions that they
were held eligible to appear for CTET and TAIT exams. To the
same effect is the decision in the case of Pandharinath Kanojia
(supra). On the contrary, in Kanojia’s case (supra) an
undertaking is directed to be furnished by the petitioners that
if in future they are convicted in the TET exam scam, they
would be removed from employment though statement was
made by the AGP that petitioners’ names do not figure in TET
exam results scam related to FIR.
xi. The decision in the case of Sagar Dattatray Chorghe (supra)
expressly in paragraph 18 records that candidates appearing in
TET exam results scam would not be ipso facto covered by the
view taken in that judgment. In Sagar Dattatray’s case (supra)
Page No.232
TET (GROUP).doc
the High Court followed decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust (supra)
giving relaxation for clearing TET exam to person covered by
said decision namely in-service on date of introduction of TET.
xii. The petitioners have also relied upon the Nidhi Kaim (supra)
and Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust (supra). We have already
considered the said decision in delivering the present judgment
as to its applicability in the light of the fact that petitioners
have admitted tampering and there is enough material to
cancel the results.
188. Consideration of decisions relied upon by the respondents :-
i. Mr. Hon, learned senior counsel for the respondents relied
upon decision in the cases of N. Tripura Sundaridevi (supra),
Madhulika Guruprasad Dahri (supra) and Smriti Madan
Kansagra (supra) for the proposition that appointments
obtained by fraud have to be viewed seriously and should be
followed by termination of such appointments. There can be
no dispute that fraud vitiates everything. In the instant case,
the respondents would be at liberty to take appropriate
proceedings as per the law against the teachers who are in
service on the basis of the malpractice and their role. Today,
this Court is not concerned with termination of teachers but
Page No.233
TET (GROUP).doc
only issue involved before us is whether the respondents were
justified in cancelling the results and imposing the penalty. We
have already expressed our views with regard to cancellation
of the result by upholding the same and by giving liberty to the
respondents for initiating penalty proceedings in accordance
with law. Therefore, to that extent, these judgements may not
be of any help. Furthermore, this Court cannot go into the
question of whether and to what extent the petitioners are
involved in the malpractice. However, the original results
obtained by tampering with marks certainly cannot be
sustained and which we have upheld.
ii. The second line of decisions relied upon by the respondents in
the cases of Dharampal Satyapal Limited (supra) , Sudhir
Kumar Singh (supra) and M. Bhaskaran (supra) deals with
natural justice. We have already given our views that in case of
malpractice the principle of natural justice cannot be followed
when it comes to cancellation of the results of tainted
candidates in mass. However, these decisions cannot be of any
assistance to the respondents for justifying permanently
debarring the candidates without giving hearing. None of these
decisions lays down the law that such a punishment can be
imposed without complying with the principle of natural
Page No.234
TET (GROUP).doc
justice. Therefore, to that extent, these decisions cannot be of
any assistance when it comes to justification for imposing
punishment / penalty contrary to the principles of natural
justice.
iii. The decision in the case of Association of Medical
Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents (supra) would not be
applicable since we have already held that the authority who
had issued certificate has the power to cancel the same and
further, we have also observed that impugned action has been
exercised in accordance with powers conferred by the 1998
Act. However, if the submission of the petitioners are to be
accepted that there is no Act which empowers the respondents
to take the impugned action then certainly Article 162 of the
Constitution of India would come to the rescue of the State for
justifying the impugned action.
iv. The decision in the case of Ashok Sadarangani (supra) relied
upon by the respondents with regard to the effect of the
decision in the case of Nidhi Kaim (supra) being referred to a
Larger Bench is pending supports the submission made by the
respondents that pending reference it does not lose its
precedential value. In the case of Nidhi Kaim (supra) only
difference of opinion between learned two Judges was with
Page No.235
TET (GROUP).doc
respect to the consequence to follow after having agreed to a
conclusion that the degrees were obtained by malpractice.
However, there was no difference of opinion on merits with
regard to malpractice having practiced by the candidates.
Therefore, the ratio of the decision in the case of Nidhi Kaim
(supra) rendered by the learned two Judges of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court is a binding precedent. We have upheld the
cancellation of results. However, with respect to penalty since
we have set aside on the ground of natural justice, we do not
express any opinion on the said issue. In any case, the
reference to larger Bench has also been answered in 2017 itself
and the Hon’ble Supreme Court refused to grant relief under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India and cancelled the
degrees obtained by the doctors.
v. The decision in the case of Central Information Commission
(supra) supports the submission made by the respondents with
regard to the power of superintendence direction and
management conferred on the State and the Council by the
Act. In our view, on the basis of Sections 14, 18, 23 and 26 of
the 1998 Act, the State and the Council have enough powers
which has been rightly exercised while passing the impugned
order/ communication.
Page No.236
TET (GROUP).doc
vi. The decision in the case of Mahatma Gandhi Commissioner
(supra) relied upon by the respondents does support their
submission that if the source exist but same is not mentioned
in the impugned order or communication or wrongly
mentioned then the order cannot be vitiated and we have
come to a conclusion that powers to cancel the results can be
traced to 1998 Act.
vii. Mr. Nikam, advocate for respondent-Council has relied upon
various decision. However, the decisions in the case of Feyaz
Ahmed Malik & Ors. (supra), Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai (supra)
and Biswa Ranjan Sahoo (supra) supports cancellation of
results without hearing in case of mass malpractice and non-
interference by Court in such matters. Other decisions are
distinguishable on facts and do not deal with punishment
without hearing.
189. Before parting, we may observe that such a situation of
malpractices in examination for getting admission in the educational
institutes, securing jobs etc. arises for various reasons. The
competition is so fierce that for few opportunities, number of people
chasing are in mass. The seats available in the education institutes
are few compared to demand, unemployment is high, etc. People to
get admission and jobs go to any extent but unfair means adopted
Page No.237
TET (GROUP).doc
does not justify the end though this Court is quite conscious about
the situation prevailing around where limited resources are chased by
unlimited individuals. There is a need for introspection amongst all
the stakeholders of this country for rectifying this situation to avoid
any major catastrophe which would hamper the standard of our great
institutions and also to create more opportunities for the youth so
that the talent is used for nation building to make Vikasit Bharat and
not for indulging in malpractices.
190. We end by reminding ourself of a letter from Abraham
Lincoln to his son’s teacher which reflects true qualities a teacher
should embrace while teaching young children :-
My son starts school today. … … …
So dear Teacher, will you please take him by his hand and
teach him things he will have to know, teaching him – but
gently, if you can. Teach him that for every enemy, there is a
friend. He will have to know that all men are not just, that all
men are not true. But … … ....
Teach him if you can that 10 cents earned is of far more value
than a dollar found. In school, teacher, it is far more
honorable to fail than to cheat. Teach him to learn how to
gracefully lose, and enjoy winning when he does win.
Teach him to be gentle with people, tough with tough people.
Steer him away from envy if you can and teach him the secret
of quiet laughter. Teach him if you can – how to laugh when
he is sad, teach him there is no shame in tears. Teach him
there can be glory in failure and despair in success. Teach him
to scoff at cynics.
Teach him if you can the wonders of books, but also give time
Page No.238
TET (GROUP).doc
to ponder the extreme mystery of birds in the sky, bees in the
sun and flowers on a green hill. Teach him to have faith in his
own ideas, even if every one tell him they are wrong.
Try to give my son the strength not to follow the crowd when
everyone else is doing it. Teach him to listen to every one, but
teach him also to filters all that he hears on a screen of truth
and take only the good that comes through.
Teach him to sell his talents and brains to the highest bidder
but never to put a price tag on his heart and soul. Let him
have the courage to be impatient, let him have the patient to
be brave. Teach him to have sublime faith in himself, because
then he will always have sublime faith in mankind, in God.
This is the order, teacher but see what best you can do.
He is such a nice little boy and he is my son.
191. In view of above, we pass following order :-
ORDER
(i) Action of respondents to cancel results of TET – 2018 and
TET – 2019 exams of the petitioners is upheld;
(ii) Action of respondents to debar petitioners permanently
from appearing in TET exams is set-aside on the ground of
breach of natural justice and on that count being
unreasonable.
(iii) However, respondents are at liberty to initiate fresh action
against all petitioners for imposing punishment / penalty
after complying with principles of natural justice and in
accordance with law. Such action, if taken, to be completed
on or before 31 December 2027 ;
Page No.239
TET (GROUP).doc
(iv) Writ Petition Nos.10879 of 2022, 9512 of 2022 and 9760 of
2023 are dismissed for suppression of material facts.
Further, the Council and the State are directed to identify
the candidates whose statements were recorded by the
police prior to the date of the impugned order dated 3
August 2022 and who have filed the petitions but have not
disclosed the said fact. Insofar as these candidates are
concerned, they would not be entitled to any benefit under
this order. The impugned order dated 3 August 2022
passed against them are confirmed in toto.
(v) Petitioners who are in-service on date of introduction of
TET and who wish to clear TET exam may do so in
accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust and others
(supra) dated 29 May 2026;
(vi) Order freezing salary and Shalarth ID of the teachers in-
service on the date of TET being made compulsory to
continue and if these teachers do not clear TET exams as
per timeline granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Anjuman’s case (supra), then their services may be
terminated. Inquiry against these teachers to be initiated
and completed on or before 31 December 2027, in
Page No.240
TET (GROUP).doc
accordance with applicable law as per the terms and
conditions of service. Respondents to intimate the same to
the employers of these petitioners of the present order.
(vii) If petitioners have cleared other exams like CTET, TAIT, etc.
to qualify as teacher then cancellation of TET – 2018 and
TET – 2019 results will not come in their way in continuing
with the job of teaching but the penal action, if the State
initiates, would not be protected and said action can go on.
However, if clearing TET exam is pre-condition for
acquiring another qualification then the present decision
will not be applicable.
(viii)The candidates who were recruited after the introduction
of TET and whose performance has been cancelled by the
impugned order are not covered by the extension of time
granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust and others (supra).
However, since they were protected by interim orders
passed by this Court, the said protection will continue for a
period of 8 weeks from today.
(ix) All contentions of all the parties are kept open insofar as
penalty / punishment proceedings are concerned, if
initiated in future and merely because cancellation of result
Page No.241
TET (GROUP).doc
is upheld, same would not come in the way of the
petitioners and the respondents in the adjudication of the
penalty proceedings.
(x) It is made clear that present judgment and order is
restricted to only those candidates who have challenged the
action before the Court and not to those who have accepted
the orders of the respondents.
192. All petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.
193. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
194. All pending Civil Applications, if any, are disposed of.
[JITENDRA JAIN] [KISHORE C. SANT]
JUDGE JUDGE
Jhs / Sayyed
Page No.242
Checking your session…