Bombay High Court
UZMA FATEMA SARFARZ KHAN ALIAS MIRZA UZMA FATEMA RAFIQ BEG MUSTAFA KHAN SHER KHANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
TET qualification is not mandatory for teachers in minority educational institutions, and a rejection based solely on alleged TET disqualification cannot be sustained.
Summary
The petitioner, Uzma Fatema, sought approval for her appointment as Shikshan Sevak (assistant teacher) in a minority educational institution, but the approval was rejected on the ground that her name appeared in alleged TET malpractices. The High Court examined whether the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is a mandatory qualification for teachers in minority institutions, relying on Supreme Court judgments that held it is not. The Court found the petitioner’s submissions persuasive and noted that the issue is sub‑judiced before a larger Bench, so the rejection could not stand. Consequently, the Court quashed the communication rejecting her appointment and directed the competent authority to reconsider the proposal in accordance with the law. It also quashed an order of Respondent No. 7 and directed that approval be granted within a stipulated period, while refraining from issuing a mandamus for permanent appointment.
Issues considered
- Is the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) a mandatory qualification for teachers appointed in minority educational institutions?
- Can an appointment be rejected solely on the basis of alleged TET disqualification when the Supreme Court has held otherwise?
- What is the appropriate jurisdiction of the High Court in directing administrative approval of such appointments?
Subjects
- TET
- minority educational institution
- appointment
- Shikshan Sevak
- writ petition
- administrative law
- qualification requirement
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:39688-DB
{1} 104-wp-8397-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
104 WRIT PETITION NO. 8397 OF 2025
Uzma Fatema Sarfarz Khan Alias Mirza Uzma Fatema d/o Rafiq Beg
Mustafa Khan Sher Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. S.A. Nagarsoge, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S.R. Wakle, AGP for State
Mr. Anup R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondents No. 3 and 4
Mr. P.D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent No. 7
.......
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : 31st AUGUST, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Approval to the appointment of the Petitioner as Shikshan Sevak
is rejected on the ground that Petitioner’s name is included in TET
malpractices.
2. This Court has consistently held that TET is not the requisite
qualification for a teacher serving in the minority institution. Same is
also held in the case of Asfiya Parveen Mohammed Abdul Basit vs.
State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary and Others in Writ Petition
No. 14704 of 2025. By relying on decision of Apex Court in Anjuman
Ishaat-E- Taleem Trust vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2025 SCC
OnLine 1912 this Court has held;
{2} 104-wp-8397-2025
“8. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties at length
and have perused the material placed on record including the
judicial pronouncements relied upon by the petitioner. We find
substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust vs.
State of Maharashtra and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912, has
held that TET qualification is not mandatory for teachers
appointed in minority educational institutions. This issue is
subjudiced before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the judgment in
case of Anjuman (supra) has been referred to Larger Bench. Till
the issue is not decided by the Larger Bench, approval cannot be
rejected only on the said ground. The reliance placed by the
petitioner on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
'Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust and others' is well
founded and this legal position has been reportedly acknowledged
by this Court in subsequent decisions. We, therefore, find no
reason to take a view different from the one already taken by this
Court.
9. In light of this settled legal position, the rejection of the
petitioner's proposal solely on the basis of alleged TET
disqualification cannot be sustained. The impugned
communication dated 25th July 2025 issued by respondent no.2
must therefore be quashed. However, in so far as the prayers
seeking a direction to grant permanent approval to the petitioner's
appointments with all consequential benefits is concerned, we are
not inclined to exercise our writ jurisdiction to issue such a
mandamus. Approval of appointment is an administrative
function that must first be considered by the competent authority
in accordance with the law and applicable judicial precedents. It
would therefore be appropriate to direct reconsideration of
petitioner's proposal.
10. Accordingly, we partly allow the petition. The impugned
communications dated 25.7.2025 issued by respondent no.2
rejecting the petitioner's proposals for approval of his
appointments as Assistant Teacher' in respondent no.3 school is
hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent no.3 shall re-submit
{3} 104-wp-8397-2025
afresh the proposals for approval of the petitioner's appointment
to respondent no.2 within a reasonable time. Upon receipt of such
proposals, respondent no.2 shall decide the same afresh, in
accordance with law keeping in view the judicial pronouncements
of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to
herein-above and shall pass a reasoned order within a period of
twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of proposals.”
3. In the light of observations made in the said decision, writ
petition is partly allowed.
4. Impugned order dated 06.06.2025 passed by Respondent No. 7
is hereby quashed and set aside.
5. Respondent No. 7 is directed to grant approval to the
appointment of the Petitioner as Shikshan Sevak in accordance with
the Rules, within a period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of copy
of this order.
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
Bhagyawant Punde
Checking your session…