Bombay High Court
SUMA RAMESH GHUTEversusTHE MAHARASHRA STATE COUCIL OF EXAMINATION AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that, in the absence of specific material linking the petitioners to the alleged TET malpractices, no coercive action such as salary withholding can be taken and the petitioners' salaries must be released, with any future action subject to due process.
Summary
The petitioners, both assistant teachers employed by tribal Ashram schools, were served with orders debaring them from the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for alleged malpractices in the 2018 and 2019 examinations and their salaries were subsequently withheld by the Project Officer of the Ministry of Tribal Development. The petitioners challenged these orders under Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing that they were not served with notice, that no specific material linked them to the alleged malpractices, and that the blanket action violated due process. The Court noted that similar orders had been issued against thousands of candidates and that earlier judgments of the same Bench had held that no coercive action could be taken against individual teachers absent specific material and proper procedure. Relying on those precedents, the Court directed the immediate release of the petitioners' withheld salaries and held that any future action must follow due legal process. The writ petitions were therefore disposed of in accordance with the earlier orders, with liberty granted to the respondents to proceed only if concrete evidence emerges.
Issues considered
- Whether the orders debaring the petitioners from TET and withholding their salaries are valid without service of notice and specific evidence of malpractice.
- Whether a blanket action can be taken against teachers based solely on the general debarment orders issued by the Maharashtra State Council of Examination.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to salary release pending any material evidence and due process.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- Article 226
- Teacher Eligibility Test
- malpractice
- salary withholding
- due process
- debarment
- administrative law
- public service
Judgment
908-WP-15326-15327-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.15326 OF 2023
Suma Ramesh Ghute ...Petitioner
Versus
The Maharashtra State Council of Examination & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.15327 OF 2023
Sampada Prakash Khamkar
after marriage Sampada Chetan Mhatre ...Petitioner
Versus
The Maharashtra State Council of Examination & Ors. ...Respondents
_______
Mr Ashok B Tajane, with Athira H Nair, for Petitioners.
Mr Sumedh S Modak, i/b Vijay Killedar, for Respondent No.1.
Mr Graham Francis (V/C) i/b Vishwanath Talkute, for Respondent No.6 in WP
15327/2023.
Mr Sachin S Punde, with Suraj Jadhav & Mansi Bansode, for Respondent Nos.6
and 7 in WP 15326/2023.
Mr P P Kakade, AGP with Mr V. G. Badgujar, AGP for Respondent – State.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 02nd SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.
1. Both the Writ Petitions involve identical issues; hence, they are being
decided by this common Judgment and Order.
2. By way of these Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the Petitioners seek a relief that the orders dated 3 rd August 2022 and 14th
October 2022 passed by Respondent No. 1 – Commissioner; the oral order dated
Page 1 of 8
908-WP-15326-15327-2023
26th October 2023 passed by Respondent No. 2 – Additional Tribal
Commissioner, Thane; and the order dated 3 rd November 2023 passed by the
Project Officer of Respondent No. 5 – Ministry of Tribal Development be quashed
and set aside.
Facts in Writ Petition No. 15326 of 2023
3. The Petitioner is working as an ‘Assistant Teacher’ in Respondent No. 7 –
Primary Ashram Shala in Ranshet. She completed her Diploma in Education
(D.Ed.) in September 2010. She was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak from 22 nd
September 2014 to 21st September 2017. Respondent No. 2 appointed her as a
Primary Shikshan Sevak on 11th November 2016. In accordance with the
Government Resolution (‘GR’) dated 23rd June 2017, the Government of
Maharashtra introduced the Pavitra Portal to promote transparency in the selection
process of teachers and implemented the Teacher Eligibility Test (‘TET’) for the
first time. Respondent No. 6 – Management conferred permanent status upon the
Petitioner by order dated 5th October 2017, subsequent to the completion of three
years of service as a Shikshan Sevak.
4. By GR dated 14th November 2017, the Government of Maharashtra
declared that candidates qualified in the C-TET are eligible for appointment as
teachers for Standards 1 to 8. Respondent No. 1, the Maharashtra State Council of
Examination, administered the Maharashtra-TET on 15 th July 2018. The Petitioner
secured reasonable marks in the aforementioned examination from the reserved
category (ST). On 19th January 2019, she received her final approval order.
Subsequently, on 19th June 2019, the State issued a notice for inclusion on the
Page 2 of 8
Shivgan
908-WP-15326-15327-2023
Pavitra Portal. The Petitioner again appeared for the TET examination conducted
in the year 2019.
5. Respondent No. 1, by its order dated 3 rd August 2022, held the Petitioner
liable for malpractices in the Maharashtra TET examination of 2019. Subsequently,
by a separate order dated 14th October 2022, Respondent No. 1 found the
Petitioner responsible for malpractices in the TET examination of 2018. By order
dated 30th October 2023, this Court, in identical matters involving other teachers,
directed that no coercive action be taken against such teachers, who were
Petitioners in Writ Petition No.13499 of 2023, as well as other related petitions.
This Court confirmed the said order by its order dated 1 st November 2023.
Despite the aforementioned orders, the Project Officer of Respondent No. 5 passed
an order dated 3rd November 2023, instructing the Management to stop the
Petitioners’ salaries in view of the oral order dated 26 th October 2023, passed by
the Additional Tribal Commissioner, Thane. The Petitioner learnt about the orders
dated 3rd August 2022 and 14th October 2022 only on 3rd November 2023 from
the Teachers’ Union. Hence, she is before this Court.
Facts in Writ Petition No. 15327 of 2023.
6. The Petitioner is working as an ‘Assistant Teacher’ in Respondent No. 7 –
Anudanit Prathamik Ashram Shala, Waki. She completed her D. Ed. in September
2011, securing 83.35%. She was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak from 13 th January
2014 to 12th January 2017 by order dated 6th January 2014, issued by Respondent
No. 6 –Management, based on her H.S.C. qualification with D. Ed. Her
appointment as a Primary Shikshan Sevak was further sanctioned by Respondent
Page 3 of 8
Shivgan
908-WP-15326-15327-2023
No. 2 – Additional Tribal Commissioner, by order dated 14 th July 2014.
Respondent No. 6 – Management, made the Petitioner permanent by order dated
14th January 2017, i.e., on completion of three years of service as a Shikshan Sevak.
7. The Petitioner appeared for the Maharashtra TET exam conducted by
Respondent No. 1 on 15th July 2018. She scored 64.66% from the open category,
surpassing the 60% qualifying mark. On 11 th December 2019, Respondent No. 2
granted her final approval as a regular primary teacher, effective from 13 th January
2017. She later appeared for the TET-2019 exam again and scored 60.14%. In
August 2023, she appeared for the C-TET conducted by the Central Board of
Secondary Education, New Delhi, scoring 94 out of 150. The result was declared
on 25th September 2023.
8. Respondent No.1, by its order dated 3 rd August 2022, held the Petitioner
liable for malpractices in the Maharashtra TET examination of 2019, cancelled her
result, and permanently debarred her from appearing in any further TET
examination. By a separate order dated 14 th October 2022, Respondent No.1 held
the Petitioner liable for malpractices in the TET examination of 2018 and passed
identical directions cancelling the result of that examination. Neither order was
served on the Petitioner. Despite the orders of this Court dated 30 th October 2023
and 1st November 2023 referred to above, the Project Officer of Respondent No.5
passed an order dated 3rd November 2023 directing the Management to stop the
Petitioner’s salary in view of the oral order dated 26 th October 2023 passed by the
Additional Tribal Commissioner, Thane. The said order was served on the
Petitioner by the Head Master on 3 rd November 2023; only upon enquiring with
Page 4 of 8
Shivgan
908-WP-15326-15327-2023
the Teachers’ Union, did the Petitioner learn of the orders dated 3 rd August 2022
and 14th October 2022. Hence, she is before this Court.
9. Heard Mr Ashok B Tajane, learned counsel for the Petitioners; Mr Sumedh
S Modak, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1; Mr P. P. Kakade, learned AGP for
Respondent – State; Mr Sachin S Punde, learned counsel for Respondent No. 6 in
Writ Petition 15326 of 2023; and Mr Graham Francis, learned counsel for
Respondent No. 6 in Writ Petition 15327 of 2023.
Analysis
10. The issue in these Writ Petitions is already covered by various judgments of
this Court. In its orders passed in various identical petitions, this Court has
observed that the TET conducted in the year 2019-20 by Respondent No. 1 is the
subject of controversy in several proceedings, as Respondent No. 1 has admitted
that there were malpractices on a large scale. Accordingly, Respondent No. 1
notified the debarment of 7880 candidates, who, according to Respondent No. 1,
are likely to have benefited from the malpractices. A similar exercise has been
undertaken by Respondent No. 1 in respect of the TET examination held on 15 th
July 2018, in which, according to the impugned order dated 14 th October 2022,
1663 candidates are stated to have secured qualification by malpractice. However,
till date, there is no finality regarding the investigation in either examination. Both
Petitioners in the present Petitions aver that neither of them is concerned or
connected with the alleged malpractices, and there is no material against them in
that regard.
11. The Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 1 st November 2023
Page 5 of 8
Shivgan
908-WP-15326-15327-2023
observed as under:
“3. Prima facie we find much substance in the contentions as urged on
behalf of the petitioners. It cannot be that a blanket action is taken merely
on the basis of the impugned order dated 3 August 2022, as also so far no
action has been resorted against the petitioners, when malpractices as alleged
pertain to the examination held about 4-5 years back after the order having
been passed. Respondent No.1 has even not informed to the employers of
the petitioner, Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 nor to the other respondents. If this
be the case, there cannot be a coercive action against the petitioners unless
due procedure in law is followed.
4. We are accordingly of the opinion that the present proceedings can
be conveniently disposed of by observing that in the event any material is
available against the petitioners, Respondent No.1 shall communicate such
material through Respondent Nos.3 & 4 to Respondent No.6 and in such
event an action against the petitioner is being taken, the same be taken by
following the due procedure in law.
5. All contentions of the parties on such issues are expressly kept
open. However, till such material is available and communicated, as
observed by us above, no coercive action merely on the basis of the order
dated 3 August 2022 be taken against the petitioners.
6. It is informed by Mr. Bubna, learned counsel for the petitioner
that on the basis of the order dated 3 August 2022, the salary of the
petitioner has been withheld. As we have already observed, in the event
there is any material against the petitioner, the appropriate procedure will be
required to be followed. The salary of the petitioner cannot be withheld
merely on the basis of the impugned communication dated 3 August 2022.
Respondent Nos.4 & 5 are accordingly directed to release the outstanding
salary of the Respondent Nos.4 & 5.
7. In the event, a proposal is received from Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 in
pursuance of any proposal which is forwarded by Respondent Nos.6 & 7, an
appropriate action in this regard be taken within a period of six weeks from
today.”
12. Mr. Tajane, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, also drew our
attention to the order dated 4th November 2023 passed by this Court in Writ
Page 6 of 8
Shivgan
908-WP-15326-15327-2023
Petition No. 13796 of 2023. Paragraphs 3 to 5 of the said order are as follows:
“3. Mr. Tajane has drawn our attention to the fact that this Court has
decided a batch of petitions in the case of Savita Vyankatrao Deshmukh
Vs. The Maharashtra State Council of Examination & Ors.1 by an order
dated 30th October, 2023. It is the submission that the present proceeding
would be covered by the said orders passed by us.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents would also not dispute such
submission. This petition accordingly can be conveniently disposed of in
terms of our order passed in the case of Savita Vyankatrao Deshmukh Vs.
The Maharashtra State Council of Examination & Ors. (supra) and other
batch of matters.
5. We accordingly direct that the concerned Authorities shall
immediately take steps to disburse the salaries of the petitioner which are
withheld only for the reason of the blanket action taken by respondent no.1.
The salary be accordingly released within a period of two weeks from today.”
13. This Court (Aurangabad Bench) has passed similar orders in as many as 808
petitions. In all these cases, the teachers, i.e., the Petitioners therein, have been
protected from coercive action.
14. Thus, Mr Tajane submitted that the present proceedings would also be
covered by the previous orders aforesaid. Mr P. P. Kakade, the learned Additional
Government Pleader, has not shown us any order interfering with the aforesaid
orders. These petitions can therefore be conveniently disposed of in terms of the
previous orders mentioned above.
15. We accordingly direct the concerned authorities to immediately take steps to
disburse the salaries of the Petitioners, which have been withheld solely on account
of alleged malpractices in the TET examinations of 2018 and 2019-2020 despite
the Petitioners rendering regular service. The salaries shall be released within three
1
Writ Petition No. 13499 of 2023 dated 30th October 2023.
Page 7 of 8
Shivgan
908-WP-15326-15327-2023
weeks from today.
16. However, we grant the Respondents liberty to proceed against the
Petitioners in the event of any material being found against them in any pending
investigation, which shall be strictly following the appropriate procedure in
accordance with law.
17. Both the Writ Petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Digitally
signed by
SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN Date:
2026.09.07
17:24:15
+0530
Page 8 of 8
Shivgan
Checking your session…