Bombay High Court

SHAIKH MAHEK LALMOHMADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: VIBHA KANKANWADI HITEN S VENEGAVKAR

Holding

The RTE Act, including the TET qualification requirement, does not apply to minority institutions until the Supreme Court reference is decided, rendering the Education Officer’s rejection unlawful.

Summary

Shaikh Mahek Lalmohamad was appointed as Assistant Teacher in a school run by a minority institution (Progressive Education Institute) on 12 September 2025. The appointment required approval from the Education Officer of Zilla Parishad, Latur, who rejected it on 30 October 2025 because the petitioner had not passed the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). The petitioner contended that, under Article 30 and pending a Supreme Court reference, minority schools are exempt from the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (RTE Act) and its TET requirement, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Anjuman Ishaat‑E‑Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra (2025). The Court held that until the reference is decided, the RTE Act does not apply to minority‑run schools, and therefore the Education Officer’s rejection was unlawful. The impugned order was quashed, and the Education Officer was directed to approve the appointment without insisting on TET qualification within one month.

Issues considered

Whether the requirement of TET qualification under the RTE Act applies to appointments in schools administered by minority institutions pending a Supreme Court reference.
Whether the Education Officer’s rejection of the appointment on the ground of non‑possession of TET qualification is legally valid.

Legislation cited

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 — s. 2(n), VII

Subjects

Minority institution
Article 30
RTE Act
TET qualification
Assistant Teacher appointment
Writ of certiorari
Writ of mandamus
Supreme Court reference

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:13609-DB

978-WP-3285-26.odt
{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

978 WRIT PETITION NO. 3285 OF 2026

Shaikh Mahek Lalmohamad
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others

......
Mr. V.S. Panpatte, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, AGP for Respondents No.1 and 2
Mr. S.B. Ghute, Advocate for Respondent No.3
......

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
DATE : 27 MARCH, 2026

PER COURT :-

1. The present Petition is filed for following reliefs:-

“B. By a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction
in the like nature, the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 issued
by the respondent no.3 -Education Officer (Primary), Zilla
Parishad, Latur at (Exhibit ‘L’) may kindly be quashed and set
aside;

C. By a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or
direction in the like nature, the Respondent No.3-Education
Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Latur may kindly be directed
to gran approval to the appointment of petitioner as Assistant
Teacher w.e.f. 12.09.2025 and further the Respondent No.2-
Deputy Director of Education may kindly be directed to sanction
Shalarth I.D. and to release the salary of the petitioner as per
grants available to the post held by her within a period of four
weeks;

D. It may kindly be held and declared that the passing of T.E.T.
examination is not compulsory to the petitioner while in service
with the respondent no.6-School run by the minority institution
and consequently the action taken by respondent no.2 refusing
to grant of approval to the appointment of petitioner ”
978-WP-3285-26.odt
{2}

2. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner, learned AGP for the

respondents No.1 and 2 and the learned Advocate appearing for

respondent No.3.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that vide

appointment order dated 12.09.2025 the petitioner came to be

appointed as Assistant Teacher in respondent No.6-School, which is run

by respondent No.5- Progressive Education Instititute, Latur, Tq. & Dist.

Latur. Respondent No.5 is recognized as the minority institution under

Article 30 of the Constitution of India and accordingly it has right to

appoint the employees of its choice. The petitioner came to be

appointed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 by following due procedure of

law.

4. Respondents No.5 moved the proposals dated 22.09.2025

before respondent No.3 and thereby sought approval to the

appointment of the petitioner as a Assistant Teacher. Respondent No.3-

Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Prishad, Latur issued letter dated

30.10.2025, rejected the the said proposal on the ground that as per

G.R. dated 13.02.2013, the qualifications for the post of Shiksah

Sevak/Assistant Teacher are prescribed. However, the petitioner is not

possessing TET/CTET qualification.
978-WP-3285-26.odt
{3}

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner relies on the recent decision

of Hon’ble Apex Court in Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust vs. the State of

Maharashtra and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 861, wherein for all other

institutions, the qualification of the teacher would be successful

completion of TET examination was upheld, however, as regards the

minority institutions are concerned, the reference has been made to the

Larger Bench. In fact, it was on the basis of the doubt expressed as to

whether the decision in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust vs.

Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 1 , has been correctly decided in respect of

the exemption of the application of the Right of Children to Free and

Compulsory Education Act, 2009, (in short, “RTE Act”), to minority

schools whether aided or un-aided, falling under Clause 1 of Article 30

of the Constitution of India.

6. When the reference is still pending, there ought not to have

been rejection and further it was specifically observed in the said

decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that till the reference is decided,

there shall be exemption of the schools, which are by minority, whether

religious or linguistic, from the provisions of the RTE Act.

7. The learned Advocate for the petitioner further relies on the

decision in Sadaf Immamoddin Masood vs. the State of Maharashtra

and Others; Writ Petition No.6894 of 2023, decided on 02.11.2023,
978-WP-3285-26.odt
{4}

Ekta Education Society and Others vs. the State of Maharashtra and

another; Writ Petition No.3755 of 2023, decided on 12.03.2024, Zakir

Husain Marathi Primary School Mukund Nagar, through Rehman Shafi

Kazi vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others ; Writ Petition No. 8891 of

2018, decided on 29.08.2019, wherein the question of applicability of

TET Examination to the minority institutions was considered.

8. The learned AGP contends that the factual situation is stated in

the impugned orders, which are in consonance with the Government

Resolutions.

9. The fact, which cannot be ignored, is that respondent No.5 is a

minority institution in view of the certificate issued by the State

Government in its Minorities Development Department, dated

30.11.2009. Respondent No.6 school is run by respondent No.5-

institution.

10. The advertisement for the post appears to have been issued and

then after following the procedure, petitioner came to be appointed. In

the impugned order, the only objection was in respect of TET

examination, as it was found that the petitioner had not passed TET

examination. Now, there is a decision wherein there is a clarity given

regarding applicability of RTE Act and the TET qualification in Anjuman
978-WP-3285-26.odt
{5}

Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others , (supra).

Paragraph No. 214 of the decision is very much clear which runs thus :

“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.”

11. Therefore, till the reference is decided, the provisions of RTE Act

are required to be complied with by all the schools as defined in Section

2(n) of the RTE Act, except the schools established and administered by

the minority. The said reason quoted in the impugned

communications/orders cannot be said to be a justifiable ground for

rejection.

12. In view of the above circumstances, the Writ Petition stands

partly allowed. The impugned order dated 30.10.2025, is hereby

quashed and set aside.

13. We direct respondent No. 3 to consider the proposal forwarded

by respondent No. 5 in respect of grant of approval to the appointment

of the petitioner, without insisting on TET qualification, in view of

Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others

(supra).
978-WP-3285-26.odt
{6}

14. Such decision to be taken by respondent No.3 within a period of

one month from today.

[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE

S P Rane

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…