Bombay High Court
WAGHUR SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL THROGH ITS CHAIRMAN DEELIPSINGH P PATILversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that an order directing the absorption of a surplus teacher without TET qualification is invalid as it contravenes the Supreme Court’s mandate that teachers must possess the requisite eligibility certification.
Summary
The petitioner, Waghur Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, challenged an order dated 04.02.2026 issued by the Education Officer (Respondent No. 2) directing the absorption of a surplus teacher who had not passed the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). The petitioner argued that the order lacked authority and contravened the Supreme Court’s decision in Anjuman Ishaat‑e‑Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra, which makes TET compulsory for in‑service teachers. The Court examined the wording of the earlier order dated 03.02.2026, finding no directive to absorb surplus teachers, and noted that the advertisement on the Pavitra Portal required TET qualification. Relying on the Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that the Education Officer could not compel the petitioner to appoint an unqualified teacher without a condition to obtain TET. Consequently, the Court set aside the 04.02.2026 order and disposed of the writ petition as the petitioner opted to wait for the next round of recruitment.
Issues considered
- Whether the Education Officer had the authority to issue an order for the absorption of a surplus teacher without TET qualification.
- Whether the requirement of TET, as mandated by Supreme Court precedent, applies to the appointment of surplus teachers.
- Whether the petitioner can be compelled to accept a teacher who does not meet the statutory eligibility criteria.
Subjects
- teacher recruitment
- surplus teachers
- Teacher Eligibility Test
- Pavitra Portal
- education law
- appointment order
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:5575-DB
904-WP-1178-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
904 WRIT PETITION NO. 1178 OF 2026
Waghur Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Through
Its Chairman Deelipsingh P Patil ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra And Another ...Respondents
...
Mr. S.V. Dixit, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S.B. Narwade, AGP for Respondents/State
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
DATE : 06 FEBRUARY 2026
ORDER :
1. In view of our order dated 03.02.2026, Respondent No. 2 is
present. Learned AGP tenders the order issued by Respondent No. 2
dated 04.02.2026, which is taken on record by marking as Exhibit-‘X’,
thereby Respondent No. 2 has passed an order for surplus teacher to be
provided to the petitioner-institution. When we asked as to why the order
has been passed/given, it has been tried to be stated that in order dated
03.02.2026 we had mentioned word ‘letter’, which has been understood
as order for accommodating the surplus candidates. We are reproducing
the part of the order;
“2. Learned AGP submits that respondent
No. 2 would remain present on 06.02.2026 along
with list of surplus candidates, along with letter,
[1]
904-WP-1178-2026.odt
and also list of remaining persons from Pavitra
Portal, if available.”
2. There is absolutely no mention in the order that, Respondent No. 2
should issue the order regarding absorption of surplus teachers.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner places on record copies of two
orders dated 16.01.2024, thereby on the same date two surplus teachers
were directed to be accommodated by the petitioner. The place or school
where they were directed to be absorbed are the same. He also points out
that the teacher who has been now absorbed by order dated 06.02.2026
has not passed TET or TAIT and in view of decision in Anjuman Ishaat-e-
Taleem Trust Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others (2025 SCC OnLine SC
1912), TET is compulsory. It is therefore difficult for the petitioner to
absorb the said teacher.
4. Learned AGP then points out paragraph no. 217 of the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it is stated that in-service teachers
having more than five years to retire on superannuation shall be under an
obligation to qualify TET within two years from the date in order to
continue in service and therefore, here, time is available for this teacher
to pass TET exam. On this point, now, we must observe that we have
come across so many orders passed by the Education Officers without
observing the mandate in Anjuman (supra). In those matters, we have
[2]
904-WP-1178-2026.odt
given directions to the Education Officers to abide by the said decision
and now Respondent No. 2 wants to rely on the decision in Anjuman
(supra) to protect her order dated 04.02.2026. On this point, certainly,
observations will have to be made that said concession is definitely given
to the in-service teachers, but when it will come to the recruitment or
appointment, the petitioner has the choice to accept such teacher, who is
not qualified, which would be then with a rider of compulsion to that
person to pass TET. Here, in this case, petitioner had made application for
publishing an advertisement on the Pavitra Portal and learned AGP
informs that said advertisement can be put on the Pavitra Portal only
after the permission or sanction is given by the Respondent No. 2. The
petitioner has annexed the copy of newspaper in which the advertisement
was published. It specifically states that the vacancy would be filled on
the basis of name of the teacher in Pavitra Portal, who possesses TET,
CTET/TAIT, as the case may be. Now in the nutshell, when Respondent
No. 2 herself had permitted the advertisement on Pavitra Portal for the
petitioner thereby indicating that the candidate should have passed TET
etc., now the action of absorption order dated 04.02.2026 is absolutely
not justified. Therefore, we are setting aside the order dated 04.02.2026.
5. It appears that before the order regarding absorption was passed,
Respondent No. 2 had not considered the earlier two orders passed by
[3]
904-WP-1178-2026.odt
her own office by which the petitioner had absorbed two teachers. When
there was a specific requirement, then the person who is not qualified
ought not to have been directed to be absorbed. We must also observe
that, Respondent No. 2 was not well equipped and prepared in giving
instructions from her conduct before the Court. Each time, she was taking
instructions from another officer and then passing it on to the learned
AGP. Such conduct is not helpful to a person who is supposed to take
decisions and as aforesaid we have observed that we had not directed her
to issue any order regarding absorption of surplus teachers. There ought
not to have been any haste on her part.
6. We had given an option to the learned advocate for the petitioner
that if the petitioner finds the teacher in letter Exhibit-X suitable,
whether the petitioner would be willing to absorb him with a condition
that he would qualify TET. Learned advocate for the petitioner, upon
instructions from the client who is present, makes a statement that the
petitioner is ready to wait for the next round of Pavitra Portal in view of
the fact that the statement has been made by Respondent No. 2 that as
there is no provision to put the list of remaining waiting candidates on
Pavitra Portal as once the process of 1:10 was undertaken. We are making
a passing reference that this interpretation of rule appears to be wrong. If
no suitable candidate is found or as in the present case only five
[4]
904-WP-1178-2026.odt
candidates appeared from the list and one candidate, who has been given
appointment order, did not join the post is concerned, there should not be
any hurdle in supplying the list of further candidates. The statement is
made that the next round of Pavitra Portal would commence in two
months.
7. In view of stand taken by the petitioner to wait, there is nothing in
the present petition which can be granted. Hence, we dispose of the writ
petition.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
Bhagyawant Punde
[5]
Checking your session…