Bombay High Court

ROHINI IRGONDA PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA EDUCATION DEPT. (PRIMARY) AND ORS

Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: MILIND N JADHAV NANDESH SHANKARRAO DESHPANDE

Holding

The petition is allowed; the rejection is set aside and the competent authority directed to approve the petitioner's proposal and issue a Shalarth ID, subject to her acquiring the TET qualification by 30 August 2028.

Summary

Rohini Irgonda Patil, appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 2012, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of her sanction proposal by the State of Maharashtra on alleged deficiencies. The Court examined the documents and found most deficiencies to be innocuous, noting that the only substantive requirement is her passing the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) as mandated by law. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Anjuman Ishaat E Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that the deadline to acquire the TET qualification is extended to 30 August 2028. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to obtain the TET qualification and ordered the competent authority to issue the approval order and a Shalarth ID within stipulated timeframes. The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the rejection of the proposal.

Issues considered

Whether the rejection of the petitioner's sanction proposal on alleged deficiencies is legally valid.
Whether the petitioner must satisfy the TET qualification requirement and the applicable deadline.
Whether the competent authority is obligated to issue the approval order and Shalarth ID for the petitioner.

Subjects

Writ petition
Assistant Teacher appointment
Teacher Eligibility Test
Mandamus
State of Maharashtra
Supreme Court precedent
Shalarth ID
Eligibility qualification

Judgment

16.WP.3440.2026.doc

Ajay

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 3440 OF 2026

Rohini Irgonda Patil .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents

....................
 Mr. Kunal Uttam Shirgire, Advocate i/by Mr. Vikas R. Kolekar and
Satvashil Gaikwad for Petitioner.
 Mr. Vikas M. Mali, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State.
......…...........

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV &
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : JULY 31, 2026.

P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Shirgire, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr.

Mali, learned AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State.

2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of her proposal by

communication dated 20.12.2025 on the ground that there were

deficiencies requiring compliance. The said rejection is appended at

Exhibit 'N' - page 49 of the Petition. Upon perusal thereof, it is prima

facie seen that certain queries have been raised. We have gone

through the same. There is no dispute or ambiguity regarding the fact

that Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on a full-time

post in the School run by Respondent No.4 pursuant to the due

process of selection and recruitment.

1 of 4
16.WP.3440.2026.doc

3. Petitioner came to be appointed on 09.05.2012.

Documentary evidence appended to the Petition prima facie shows the

qualification of the Petitioner at Exhibit 'A' - page No.20. The

certificate issued by the School dated 29.08.2022, inter alia, certifies

the fact that Petitioner was appointed on 15.06.2012. The said

certificate was issued by the Headmaster and is appended at page

No.22. The advertisement is appended at Exhibit 'B' - page No. 23. The

selection list at Exhibit 'C' - page Nos.24 and 25, the appointment letter

at Exhibit 'D' - page No.28, followed by the Resolution of the Trust

appointing the Petitioner at Exhibit 'F' - page No. 29. The attendance

record of Petitioner is appended from page page No.30 onwards and is

contained in Exhibit 'G' (collectively).

4. According to the Petitioner, the institution has forwarded the

proposal, a copy of which is appended at Exhibit 'I' - page No.43. It

prima facie states that for processing the proposal, the checklist

contained at Exhibit 'H' - page No.41 dated 19.08.2022 had been duly

complied with and the proposal was accordingly submitted. However,

insofar as the consideration of the said proposal is concerned, the

proposal came to be rejected by the impugned communication dated

26.12.2025. There are 15 alleged conditions/deficiencies mentioned

in the said rejection communication.

5. What we find is that most of the alleged deficiencies are

2 of 4
16.WP.3440.2026.doc

innocuous in nature. The only requirement which the Petitioner may

have to fulfill in view of her appointment in the year 2012 is to acquire

the qualification of passing the TET Examination. The Supreme Court

in the case of Anjuman Ishaat E Taleem Trust Vs. State of

Maharashtra1 has now extended the time to acquire the said

qualification up to 30th August 2028.

6. Hence, we direct the Petitioner to ensure that she acquires

the said qualification, failing which whatever benefit is received by her

shall stand reverted, subject to the said condition being extended or

otherwise. The rest of the deficiencies mentioned in the rejection

communication are prima facie unacceptable and cannot be

countenanced. The requirements contained in the checklist at Exhibit

'H' at page No.41 have already been complied with by the School,

copies of which are appended to the Petition.

7. The checklist includes details regarding the School

registration, NOC, certificate of employment, advertisement, selection

list, appointment order, resolution of the trust, etc. All of these

documents have been discussed hereinabove and we have perused the

same. Some of the deficiencies, such as the requirement to produce

the timetable of the school, Form No.26, details of salary, last salary

slip, registration of the school, seniority list, cannot be countenanced

in the rejection communication, particularly when the same have
1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912

3 of 4
16.WP.3440.2026.doc

already been produced.

8. Prima facie we find that there is no ambiguity or dispute or

issue relating to Petitioner's appointment in the year 2012. Once that

is the position, we agree with the submissions made by the learned

Advocate for the Petitioner and in that view of the matter, Writ

Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c) which

read thus:-

"(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased issue Writ of Mandamus /
certiorari or any other Writ thereby quash and set aside the
impugned order passed by the Respondent No. 3 thereby rejected
the sanction proposal dated 29/08/2025 and allow the said
proposal.
(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased issue Writ of Mandamus or
any other Writ thereby direct to the Respondent No. 3 after
decide the proposal of the petitioner to submit the Proposal for
Shalarth ID of the Petitioner for the post of Asst. Teacher with the
Respondent No. 2 and the Respondent No. 2 shall consider
expeditiously."

9. We direct the concerned Competent Authority to issue the

approval order in favour of the Petitioner within a period of two weeks

from the date of receipt of a server copy of this order. We also direct

the concerned Authority to issue a Shalarth ID within a period of one

week thereafter, upon computation of Petitioner's emoluments in

accordance with law.

10. Writ Petition stands allowed in the above terms.

[ NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. ] [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Ajay
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.07.31
17:56:04 +0530 4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…