GURUSHANT SURESH GHONGADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. SECR. SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPT. AND ORS

2026:BHC-KOL:8440-DB

                                                                       22-WP-16791-2024(C).doc


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 16791 OF 2024

               Iranna Gurunath Sutar                                      ...Petitioner
                         Versus
               The State of Maharashtra and Others                        ...Respondents

                                                 WITH
                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 16789 OF 2024

               Gurushant Suresh Ghongade                                  ...Petitioner
                         Versus
               The State of Maharashtra and Others                        ...Respondents

                                            ——————
               Mr. Narendra Bandiwadekar a/w Mr. Sagar Mane, Mr. Rushikesh D.
               Jagdale, Ms. Neha Farakate for the Petitioners.
               Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State.
                                               ——————

                                                CORAM :         SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
                                                                NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.

                                                DATE        :   SEPTEMBER 02, 2026.
               P. C. :

               1.        By the present Petitions, the challenge is to the order dated 6 th

               July, 2021, by which the Deputy Director of Education refused the

               Petitioners’ application for inclusion of their names in the Shalarth

               Pranali and issuance of Shalarth ID, though approval was granted, on the

               ground that the Petitioners have not acquired TET qualification.




               Jamadar-SL                          1 of 4
                                                                    22-WP-16791-2024(C).doc


2.       Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

Petitioners, would rely on the decision in the case of Paramvir Abdul

Hamid Social Welfare Association, Tunki (Bk.) and Others Vs. The

Deputy Director of Education and Another1, and would submit that in

identical situation where the Petitioner No.1 therein was a minority

institution, this Court has considered the pendency of the issue before

the Hon’ble Apex Court and has directed inclusion of the Petitioner’s

name in Shalarth ID by holding that the rejection of approval on the

ground of non-acquisition of TET qualification is contrary to the judicial

decisions as well as the communication issued by the Director of

Education (Primary).

3.       He would further submit that in respect of Writ Petition No.

16791 of 2024, the Petitioner has acquired CTET qualification in August,

2023, though not required in view of the institution being a minority

institution.

4.       Both Petitions raise the common issue as regards the rejection of

the Petitioners’ application for inclusion of the names of the Petitioners

in the Shalarth Pranali and issuance of Shalarth ID. It is not disputed that

the Petitioners are employed by the minority institution and came to be

appointed as Assistant Teachers after following due process of law and

their appointments were also approved. After the minority institution

1    In Writ Petition No.7566 of 2025 decided on 1st April, 2026.


Jamadar-SL                                  2 of 4
                                                               22-WP-16791-2024(C).doc


became 20% aided, the application was made for inclusion of the

Petitioners’ names in the Shalarth Pranali and issuance of Shalarth ID,

which came to be rejected only on the ground of non-acquisition of TET

qualification.

5.      The issue is already covered by the decision in the case of

Anjuman Ishaat-E-Talim Trust Vs. The State of Maharashtra and

Others2, where the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in paragraph 214, which

reads as under:

         “214. Per the detailed discussions above and resting on the same, we hold
         that the provisions of the RTE Act have to be complied with by all schools as
         defined in Section 2(n) of the RTE Act except the schools established and
         administered by the minority – whether religious or linguistic – till such time
         the reference is decided and subject to the answers to the questions
         formulated above under section VII. Logically, it would follow that in-service
         teachers (irrespective of the length of their service) would also be required
         to qualify the TET to continue in service."


6.      The issue was also considered in the decision of Paramvir Abdul

Hamid Social Welfare Association Tunki (Bk.) (supra) where the

Hon’ble Division Bench also considered the communication issued by

the Director of Education (Primary) that the schools run by the minority

institutions have approached the Hon’ble Apex Court in respect of the

compulsory acquisition of TET, and therefore, the condition is relaxed

for the time being. As held by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of

Paramvir Abdul Hamid Social Welfare Association, Tunki (Bk.) (supra),

till the decision of reference in respect of the issue of applicability of

2    2025 LiveLaw (SC) 861


Jamadar-SL                              3 of 4
                                                              22-WP-16791-2024(C).doc


TET examination, the rejection of approval is contrary to the judicial

pronouncement as well as the communications issued by the Director of

Education (Primary).

7.     In light of the undisputed position, the impugned order rejecting

the application only on the ground of non-acquisition of TET in respect

of a minority institution is clearly unsustainable and is hereby quashed

and set aside.

8.     The Writ Petitions are allowed in terms of prayer Clauses (b) and

(c), which read as under:

        “b]    By a suitable writ, order or direction, this Hon'ble Court may be
        pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 6.7.2021
        issued by the Respondent No. 2, and accordingly the Respondent No. 2
        may be directed to enter the name of the Petitioner No. 1 in Shalartha
        Pranali and to grant him Shalartha I.D. as Assistant Teacher [20% aided]
        in the Respondent No. 5 School.
        c]     After the relief would be granted as prayed in prayer clause [b]
        above, that by a suitable writ, order or direction, this Hon'ble Court may
        be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 3 to sanction and release the
        grant-in-aid for payment of monthly salary at 20% grant-in-aid to the
        Petitioner No. 1 as Assistant Teacher in the Respondent No. 5 School
        w.e.f. 1.3.2021, with all arrears and to continue to pay the same every
        month on regular basis.”

9.     The Respondent No.2 is directed to enter the name of the

Petitioner No.1 in both the Petitions in the Shalarth Pranali and grant

Shalarth ID within a period of four weeks and release the grant-in-aid

within a period of three weeks thereafter.

10.    The Petitions are allowed and disposed of in the above terms.



 [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]                          [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]


Jamadar-SL                             4 of 4