Bombay High Court

FOZIYA MINAHAJ AFZAL AHMED KHANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: RULE ABSOLUTE

Holding

The Court upheld the cancellation of TET results as within the Council’s statutory powers but set aside the permanent debarment for breaching natural justice.

Summary

The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, dealt with a massive group of writ petitions challenging the cancellation of Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) results for the 2018 and 2019 examinations and the permanent debarment of around 7,880 candidates for alleged mark‑sheet tampering. The Court examined the statutory powers under the Maharashtra State Council of Examination Act, 1998 and the 2010 Regulations, finding that the Commissioner had authority to cancel certificates when fraud was discovered. It held that the cancellation of results was justified based on the evidence of tampering, but the permanent debarment was set aside for violating the principles of natural justice as no hearing was afforded. The Court directed the State and Council to initiate any future penalty proceedings only after complying with due‑process requirements and ordered the identification of candidates who had suppressed material facts. All petitions were disposed of, with specific directions on salary freezes, Shalarth IDs, and timelines for further action.

Issues considered

The statutory authority of the Maharashtra State Council of Examination and its Commissioner to cancel TET results where mark‑sheet tampering is proven.
Whether the permanent debarment of candidates without a prior hearing violates the principles of natural justice.
Whether the State Government’s directions under Section 26 of the 1998 Act are sufficient to compel the Council’s actions.
Whether the suppression of material facts by certain petitioners warrants dismissal of their petitions.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977
Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices at University, Board and Other Specified Examination Act, 1982 — s. 7, 8
Maharashtra State Council of Examination Act, 1998 — s. 14, 18, 23(1)(f), 23(1)(p), 23(1)(t), 26, 2(b), 2(c), 2(n), 3, 35, 37, 4, 5(2)
Maharashtra State Council of Examination Regulations, 2010 — s. Regulation 11(2), Regulation 13, Regulation 8(2)(t)
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009

Subjects

teacher eligibility test
exam malpractice
natural justice
cancellation of results
permanent debarment
administrative law
due process
education law

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:45034-DB

TET (GROUP).doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

201 WRIT PETITION NO. 9430 OF 2022

1. Jyoti Uttamrao Shinde,
Age : 32 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: Jain Gali, Ambejogai, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.

2. Parmeshwar s/o Baburao Rathod,
Age : 34 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: L.I.C. Colony, Ambejogai, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.

3. Savita Sundarrao Pawar,
Age : 33 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: Jadid Javal Post Haraki Limgaon,
Majalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

4. Pranita Prakashrao Kulkarni,
Age : 39 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: Power House Chya Pathimage,
Sanmitra Colony, Majalgaon,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.

5. Pooja Bhaskar Maske,
Age : 29 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: Vishal Niwas, Anna Bhau Sathe
Nagar, Mandwa Road, Ambejogai,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.

6. Kedar s/o Dayasagar Joshi,
Age : 35 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: Behind Govt. Rest House,
Annapurna Niwas Road, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.

7. Dhanajay s/o Devidas Ingole,
Age : 31 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: Samnapur, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

8. Supriya Popat Kamble,
Age : 32 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: Navgan College Road,

Page No.1
TET (GROUP).doc

Madhur Niwas, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.

9. Saraswati Narayan Giri,
Age : 33 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: Mauli Niwas, Near Ambedkar School,
Pangari Road, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

10. Prashant s/o Dattatraya Kulkarni,
Age : 33 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: R. H. No.1, Mathoshri Niwas,
Renuka Resident Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.

11. Meena Bhimrao Tike,
Age : 39 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: Mu. Po. Shidod, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.

12. Urmila Avadhutrao Wade,
Age : 43 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: Mali Galli, Georai Road, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.

13. Muktabai Narhari Soge,
Age : 30 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: Upli, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

14. Shamika Bansidhar Ranjwan,
Age : 43 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: Zanda Chowk, Patil Galli, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.

15. Santosh s/o Kishan Aade,
Age : 31 years, Occu.: Assistant Teacher,
R/o: Mu. Nandgaon, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed. ...Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra
Through it’s Secretary,
Education and Sport Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.

Page No.2
TET (GROUP).doc

2. The Commissioner of Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune,
Central Building, First Floor,
Dr. Annie Besant Road, Agarkar
Nagar, Pune, Tq. & Dist. Pune
Maharashtra – 411 001.

3. The Chairman,
The Maharashtra State Council
of Examination, Pune, 17,
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road,
Camp, Pune, Tq. & Dist. Pune
Maharashtra – 411 001.

4. The Commissioner,
The Maharashtra State Council
of Education, Pune, 17,
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road,
Camp, Pune, Tq. & Dist. Pune
Maharashtra – 411 001.

5. The Director of Education,
Directorate of Primary Education,
Maharashtra State, Dr. Anie Bezant Road,
Central Building Pune – 411 001.

6. The Deputy Director of Education,
Aurangabad, Region Aurangabad,
Misa Compound, Bhadkal Gate Cir,.
Naralibag, Aurangabad,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.

7. The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Near Shivaji Chowk,
Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

8. The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Near Shivaji Chowk,
Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

9. The Superintendent,
Pay and P. F. Unit, (Secondary),
Opposite SP Office, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.

Page No.3
TET (GROUP).doc

10. The Superintendent,
Pay and P. F. Unit, (Primary),
Opposite SP Office, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed. ...Respondents

AND
202 WRIT PETITION NO. 9461 OF 2022
Syed Aaqib Ali Amanat Ali And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
203 WRIT PETITION NO. 9466 OF 2022
Shabana Abdul Salim Choudhary
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
204 WRIT PETITION NO. 9467 OF 2022
Anwari Begum Mukhtar Ahmad Syed
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
205 WRIT PETITION NO. 9468 OF 2022
Vikas Shivaji Satpute
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
206 WRIT PETITION NO. 9469 OF 2022
Purushottam Bharatsing Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
207 WRIT PETITION NO. 9470 OF 2022
Shital Balkrushna Kadus And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

Page No.4
TET (GROUP).doc

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16170 OF 2022
IN WP/9470/2022
Shital Balkrushna Kadus And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Other
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16169 OF 2022
IN WP/9470/2022
Shital Balkrushna Kadus And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Other

AND
208 WRIT PETITION NO. 9472 OF 2022
Rohit Rajkumar Kulkarni And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
209 WRIT PETITION NO. 9473 OF 2022
Ravindra Mangalu Bharude
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
210 WRIT PETITION NO. 9476 OF 2022
Akshay Sahebrao Lokhande
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
211 WRIT PETITION NO. 9481 OF 2022
Pushpa Pandurang Murmure
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
212 WRIT PETITION NO. 9482 OF 2022
Seema Pandurang Lohate

Page No.5
TET (GROUP).doc

VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
213 WRIT PETITION NO. 9485 OF 2022
Rajendra Babulal Pawar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
214 WRIT PETITION NO. 9489 OF 2022
Gaurav Pravin Badgujar And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
215 WRIT PETITION NO. 9492 OF 2022
Tushar Shantaram Borse
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
216 WRIT PETITION NO. 9493 OF 2022
Varsharani Sambhaji Nirde
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
217 WRIT PETITION NO. 9495 OF 2022
Seema Rangrao Rudre
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
218 WRIT PETITION NO. 9498 OF 2022
Bhushan Sukadeo Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND

Page No.6
TET (GROUP).doc

219 WRIT PETITION NO. 9499 OF 2022
Abdul Salam Mukhtar And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
220 WRIT PETITION NO. 9500 OF 2022
Mohammed Shoaib Mohammed Jameel And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
221 WRIT PETITION NO. 9501 OF 2022
Dinesh Suresh Mahajan And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
222 WRIT PETITION NO. 9503 OF 2022
Bhushan Vhansing Pawar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
223 WRIT PETITION NO. 9504 OF 2022
Vinod Sahebrao Chaudhari
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
224 WRIT PETITION NO. 9507 OF 2022
Omar Farooq Abdul Rashid
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary School Education
And Others

AND
225 WRIT PETITION NO. 9508 OF 2022
Shaikh Zeeshan Hamed
VERSUS

Page No.7
TET (GROUP).doc

The State Of Maharashtra Through The Principal Secretary And
Others

AND
226 WRIT PETITION NO. 9511 OF 2022
Pooja Pramod Bhole
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

AND
227 WRIT PETITION NO. 9513 OF 2022
Arvind Gangadhar Kale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
228 WRIT PETITION NO. 9514 OF 2022
Sapna Raghunathrao Deshmukh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
229 WRIT PETITION NO. 9516 OF 2022
Sangita Maroti Gitte
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
230 WRIT PETITION NO. 9517 OF 2022
Shaikh Sameer Shaikh Azimoddin And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
231 WRIT PETITION NO. 9518 OF 2022
Bhakti Rajaram Bhutekar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

Page No.8
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
232 WRIT PETITION NO. 9520 OF 2022
Swapnil Rajendra Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
233 WRIT PETITION NO. 9521 OF 2022
Shashank Sambhaji Kunte And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
234 WRIT PETITION NO. 9522 OF 2022
Sangita Marotrao Kadam
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
235 WRIT PETITION NO. 9523 OF 2022
Kalpana Annasaheb Nikam
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
236 WRIT PETITION NO. 9524 OF 2022
Nagnath Mangusingh Pawar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
237 WRIT PETITION NO. 9526 OF 2022
Hemlata Subhash Chaudhari
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
238 WRIT PETITION NO. 9527 OF 2022
Aasif Khan Hamid Khan And Others
VERSUS

Page No.9
TET (GROUP).doc

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7577 OF 2024
IN WP/9527/2022
Shareen Begum Abdul Qakeer Deshmukh And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
239 WRIT PETITION NO. 9529 OF 2022
Vinod Prataprao Darade And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
240 WRIT PETITION NO. 9531 OF 2022
Shaikh Nishad Ahemad Mumtaj Ahemad And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
241 WRIT PETITION NO. 9532 OF 2022
Nimbalkar Devayani Govindrao
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3036 OF 2025
IN WP/9532/2022
Nimbalkar Devayani Govindrao
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
242 WRIT PETITION NO. 9533 OF 2022
Sachin Sambhaji Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND

Page No.10
TET (GROUP).doc

243 WRIT PETITION NO. 9534 OF 2022
Dnyanoba Narsingrao Dawargaye
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
244 WRIT PETITION NO. 9535 OF 2022
Haribhau Bhanudas Raut
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
245 WRIT PETITION NO. 9536 OF 2022
Rani Abasaheb Kshirsagar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
246 WRIT PETITION NO. 9537 OF 2022
Anita Punjabrao Garud
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secreary And Others

AND
247 WRIT PETITION NO. 9539 OF 2022
Rahul Gomaji Pawar And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
248 WRIT PETITION NO. 9540 OF 2022
Aafreen Parveen Muzaffarali Sayyad
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
249 WRIT PETITION NO. 9542 OF 2022
Sushma Sunil Kalekar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

Page No.11
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
250 WRIT PETITION NO. 9543 OF 2022
Rajkumari Anilrao Kadam
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
251 WRIT PETITION NO. 9547 OF 2022
Shekhar Vishram Borse
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3034 OF 2025
IN WP/9547/2022
Shekhar Vishram Borse
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
252 WRIT PETITION NO. 9548 OF 2022
Darshan Shantilal Wanjari
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
253 WRIT PETITION NO. 9549 OF 2022
Mohammed Faraz Gulam Mohiuddin And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
254 WRIT PETITION NO. 9550 OF 2022
Rakhi Ratnakar Lavhande
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND

Page No.12
TET (GROUP).doc

255 WRIT PETITION NO. 9551 OF 2022
Nagesh Sadashivappa Sugare And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
256 WRIT PETITION NO. 9552 OF 2022
Humera Aziz Sayyed And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7578 OF 2024
IN WP/9552/2022
Humera Aziz Sayyed And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
257 WRIT PETITION NO. 9553 OF 2022
Harshal Arunrao Deshmukh And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
258 WRIT PETITION NO. 9555 OF 2022
Swati Bhalchandra Sonje Alias Swati Vikas Kotkar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
259 WRIT PETITION NO. 9556 OF 2022
Rekha Bhaidas Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
260 WRIT PETITION NO. 9559 OF 2022
Raziya Anjum Samee Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

Page No.13
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
261 WRIT PETITION NO. 9560 OF 2022
Mallinath Melgiri Kante
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
262 WRIT PETITION NO. 9561 OF 2022
Vinodkumar Gunaji Wavhal
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
263 WRIT PETITION NO. 9562 OF 2022
Kalpana Bhagwanrao Popalghat
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
264 WRIT PETITION NO. 9565 OF 2022
Swati Nagosing Rajput Alias Ravindra Jadhav And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thorugh Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
265 WRIT PETITION NO. 9571 OF 2022
Mohammad Taslim Mohammad Ibrahim And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
266 WRIT PETITION NO. 9572 OF 2022
Manjushree Chandrakant Chaure
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
267 WRIT PETITION NO. 9574 OF 2022
Vaishali Rustumrao Kharat
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

Page No.14
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
268 WRIT PETITION NO. 9576 OF 2022
Naziya Aafreen Yousuf Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
269 WRIT PETITION NO. 9577 OF 2022
Avinash Vyankatrao Dalvi
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
270 WRIT PETITION NO. 9579 OF 2022
Sandip Bhaskar Deore
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
271 WRIT PETITION NO. 9580 OF 2022
Sucheta Baliram Gavit
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
272 WRIT PETITION NO. 9581 OF 2022
Shripat Bhagwanrao Dhage
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
273 WRIT PETITION NO. 9582 OF 2022
Kalyani Raju Madupati And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10604 OF 2025
IN WP/9573/2022

Page No.15
TET (GROUP).doc

Sunil Rameshrao Narwade And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10600 OF 2025
IN WP/11212/2023
Nilseh Ramsing Vasave
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9484 OF 2022
Vijaya Tukaram Shardul And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9431 OF 2022
Sayyed Sajid Ali Sadaquat Ali
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9488 OF 2022
Mayuri Shankar Patil And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8836 OF 2025
IN WP/10097/2022
Mohd Khaleel Mohammad Sahab Ansari
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4379 OF 2025
IN WP/793/2023
Sandhya Ashok Gode And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9432 OF 2022
Kishan Subhashrao Jadhav And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

Page No.16
TET (GROUP).doc

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10598 OF 2025
IN WP/9484/2022
Vijaya Tukaram Shardul And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 324 OF 2024
Shubhangi Hanumant Shingate
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary, Mumbai And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6697 OF 2025
IN WP/9431/2022
Sayyed Sajid Ali Sadaquat Ali
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9616 OF 2022
Dipika Shivdas Bagul
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4385 OF 2025
IN WP/9490/2022
Somnath Raghunath Kardile And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9525 OF 2022
Nalini Ravindra Patil Alias Nalini Ranjitsingh Thakor
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9505 OF 2022
Vasant Govindrao Kandhare And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH

Page No.17
TET (GROUP).doc

WRIT PETITION NO. 9497 OF 2022
Rajaram Gyanoba Gavalwad
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9569 OF 2022
Pavan Marotirao Manekar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9502 OF 2022
Sweta Vinayak Pawar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11212 OF 2023
Nilseh Ramsing Vasave
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9512 OF 2022
Shivaji Nagorao Malegave And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4387 OF 2025
IN WP/9490/2022
Dipak Bandu Ahire And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9487 OF 2022
Santram Bhikaji Jumde And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9530 OF 2022
Utkarsh Sudhakar Aher And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

Page No.18
TET (GROUP).doc

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9578 OF 2022
Prakash Datta Jaybhaye
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4407 OF 2025
IN WP/10090/2022
Dnyaneshwar Sahebrao Misal
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9490 OF 2022
Dipak Bandu Ahire And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10045 OF 2022
Mayuri Ganpatgound Sudanwar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9748 OF 2022
Dnyaneshwar Gangadhar Yeske
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9538 OF 2025
IN WP/10085/2022
Heena Kausar Afzal Khan And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2719 OF 2025
Karishma Sanjay Desale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12184 OF 2025
Haseeb Habib Alias Habeeb Shaikh And Others
VERSUS

Page No.19
TET (GROUP).doc

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And
Another
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3668 OF 2026
IN WP/9748/2022
Dnyaneshwar Gangadhar Yeske
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5272 OF 2025
IN WP/324/2024
Shubhangi Hanumant Shingate
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary, Mumbai And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3260 OF 2025
Vijay Sitaram Johare And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And
Another
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2003 OF 2025
Paresh Pratapsingh Rajput
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10085 OF 2022
Heena Kausar Afzal Khan And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7213 OF 2025
Ganesh Andu Deshmukh And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5271 OF 2025
IN WP/9582/2022
Kalyani Raju Madupati And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

Page No.20
TET (GROUP).doc

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13505 OF 2024
IN WP/9597/2022
Nadim Ahmad Shaikh Ibrahim
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9597 OF 2022
Nadim Ahmad Shaikh Ibrahim
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9528 OF 2022
Sharad Ramdas Khalane
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3033 OF 2025
IN WP/9528/2022
Sharad Ramdas Khalane
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9554 OF 2022
Pooja Venkatrao Umate And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9557 OF 2022
Tahura Nausheen Mustafa Hussain Shaikh And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9568 OF 2022
Mohammed Maaz Md Mateen And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9570 OF 2022
Vaishali Vishwas Mhaske
VERSUS

Page No.21
TET (GROUP).doc

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9519 OF 2022
Ramesh Ramprasad Gadhave And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10090 OF 2022
Dnyaneshwar Sahebrao Misal
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10097 OF 2022
Mohd Khaleel Mohammad Sahab Ansari
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10650 OF 2022
Nabeela Tabassum Saeed Khan Durrani And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12162 OF 2022
Mayurkumar Sudhakarrao Deshmukh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1715 OF 2023
Pooja Vishnu Jadhav
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 793 OF 2023
Mayuri Bhimrao Gavhane And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9440 OF 2022
Naveed Mohammed Abu Mohamed Shaikh And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

Page No.22
TET (GROUP).doc

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9452 OF 2022
Anees Khan Nasir Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9465 OF 2022
Atul Tukaram Salunke And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9486 OF 2022
Dharmendra Udhavrao Navale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4405 OF 2025
IN WP/9519/2022
Ramesh Ramprasad Gadhave And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4408 OF 2025
IN WP/9568/2022
Mohammed Maaz Md Mateen And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4441 OF 2025
IN WP/9465/2022
Mahesh Ramdas Pawar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4442 OF 2025
IN WP/9465/2022
Yogesh Sominath Karpe
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH

Page No.23
TET (GROUP).doc

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4444 OF 2025
IN WP/13105/2022
Saraswati Gangadhar Anmulwad
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4445 OF 2025
IN WP/9530/2022
Utkarsh Sudhakar Aher And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4472 OF 2025
IN WP/10102/2022
Sandeep Pundlik Kathar Alias Sandeep Pundlik Takalkar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4492 OF 2025
IN WP/9557/2022
Awez Haroon Shaikh And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4500 OF 2025
IN WP/9486/2022
Dharmendra Udhavrao Navale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4502 OF 2025
IN WP/9525/2022
Nalini Ravindra Patil Alias Nalini Ranjitsingh Thakor
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4506 OF 2025
IN WP/9570/2022
Vaishali Vishwas Mhaske
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

Page No.24
TET (GROUP).doc

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4512 OF 2025
IN WP/9452/2022
Anees Khan Nasir Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4528 OF 2025
IN WP/9554/2022
Shraddha Arvind Bodhekar And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6703 OF 2025
IN WP/10650/2022
Nabeela Tabassum Saeed Khan Durrani And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7949 OF 2025
IN WP/9568/2022
Sameena Begum Mohd Lukman
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8843 OF 2025
IN WP/9432/2022
Kishan Subhashrao Jadhav
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6716 OF 2025
IN WP/9440/2022
Naveed Mohammed Abu Mohamed Shaikh And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6714 OF 2025
IN WP/9440/2022
Sohel Din Mohammed Pathan And Another
VERSUS

Page No.25
TET (GROUP).doc

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13105 OF 2022
Saraswati Gangadhar Anmulwad
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4384 OF 2025
IN WP/9490/2022
Dinesh Nimba Deore
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4388 OF 2025
IN WP/9490/2022
Kishor Rustum Chaudhari
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4389 OF 2025
IN WP/9490/2022
Jyoti Karbhari Shirsath
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4386 OF 2025
IN WP/9490/2022
Satish Dnyaneshwar Ghodke And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4525 OF 2025
IN WP/9554/2022
Ganesh Popatrao Chavan And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4526 OF 2025
IN WP/9554/2022
Gautam Natharao Makasare
VERSUS

Page No.26
TET (GROUP).doc

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4527 OF 2025
IN WP/9554/2022
Prerana Kailas Wahule
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4529 OF 2025
IN WP/9554/2022
Annie Nitesh Shrisundar Alias Ani Ashok Khetre And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6263 OF 2025
IN WP/9519/2022
Shahzad Noor Shaikh And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4383 OF 2025
IN WP/9490/2022
Pratibha Digambarrao Wanarase
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4424 OF 2025
IN WP/9487/2022
Gajanan Janardhan Karhale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6733 OF 2025
IN WP/12162/2022
Mayurkumar Sudhakarrao Deshmukh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4378 OF 2025
IN WP/3972/2023
Gayatri Gulab Suryawanshi

Page No.27
TET (GROUP).doc

VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5277 OF 2025
IN WP/9616/2022
Dipika Shivdas Bagul
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5279 OF 2025
IN WP/9488/2022
Mayuri Shankar Patil And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5337 OF 2025
IN WP/10045/2022
Mayuri Ganpatgound Sudanwar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5274 OF 2025
IN WP/9913/2022
Bandu Ambadas Gawali
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5281 OF 2025
IN WP/9497/2022
Rajaram Gyanoba Gavalwad
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5310 OF 2025
IN WP/9569/2022
Pavan Marotirao Manekar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5336 OF 2025
IN WP/9578/2022

Page No.28
TET (GROUP).doc

Prakash Datta Jaybhaye
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5338 OF 2025
IN WP/9505/2022
Vasant Govindrao Kandhare And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10594 OF 2025
IN WP/9502/2022
Sweta Vinayak Pawar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10595 OF 2025
IN WP/9512/2022
Shivaji Nagorao Malegave And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9573 OF 2022
Sunil Rameshrao Narwade And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11904 OF 2025
IN WP/9471/2022
Mosin Khan Husen Khan Pathan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9471 OF 2022
Mosin Khan Husen Khan Pathan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10102 OF 2022
Sandeep Pundlik Kathar Alias Sandeep Pundlik Takalkar
VERSUS

Page No.29
TET (GROUP).doc

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9913 OF 2022
Bandu Ambadas Gawali
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3972 OF 2023
Gayatri Gulab Suryawanshi
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6715 OF 2025
IN WP/9440/2022
Mushtaque Mohammed Noor Mohammed Shaikh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5720 OF 2025
IN WP/1715/2023
Pooja Vishnu Jadhav
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
274 WRIT PETITION NO. 9583 OF 2022
Dattu Laxman Chelekar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
275 WRIT PETITION NO. 9584 OF 2022
Prabhakar Hanmant Gundapwar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
276 WRIT PETITION NO. 9585 OF 2022
Shantaram Devidas Lokhande
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

Page No.30
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
277 WRIT PETITION NO. 9587 OF 2022
Abdul Azim Abdul Alim And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11958 OF 2025
IN WP/9587/2022
Abdul Azim Abdul Alim And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
278 WRIT PETITION NO. 9588 OF 2022
Sandip Prakash Borse And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
279 WRIT PETITION NO. 9590 OF 2022
Aref Khan Chand Khan Pathan And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
280 WRIT PETITION NO. 9591 OF 2022
Shahnawaz Husain Ajaj Husain Deshmukh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
281 WRIT PETITION NO. 9593 OF 2022
Indu Pandurang Sarode
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

Page No.31
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
282 WRIT PETITION NO. 9594 OF 2022
Aruna Pandurang Borude
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
283 WRIT PETITION NO. 9596 OF 2022
Shivcharan Raju Pawar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
284 WRIT PETITION NO. 9598 OF 2022
Khan Aijaz Ahmad Khan Nasrulla Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2199 OF 2025
IN WP/9598/2022
Khan Aijaz Ahmad Khan Nasrulla Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
285 WRIT PETITION NO. 9599 OF 2022
Zulkar Khan Ibadat Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
286 WRIT PETITION NO. 9600 OF 2022
Prashant Ishwar Chaudhari
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
287 WRIT PETITION NO. 9601 OF 2022
Fouziya Jahan Ayyub Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

Page No.32
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
288 WRIT PETITION NO. 9602 OF 2022
Ruksana Ramjan Tadavi
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
289 WRIT PETITION NO. 9603 OF 2022
Tushar Dilip Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
290 WRIT PETITION NO. 9604 OF 2022
Pankaj Mangal Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
291 WRIT PETITION NO. 9605 OF 2022
Varsha Pruthviraj Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
292 WRIT PETITION NO. 9606 OF 2022
Mohammed Ismail Mohammed Sadique Momin
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
293 WRIT PETITION NO. 9607 OF 2022
Absar Ahemad Mohammad Hanif Shaikh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
294 WRIT PETITION NO. 9608 OF 2022
Mirza Mohammad Ziya Razzaque Beg

Page No.33
TET (GROUP).doc

VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
295 WRIT PETITION NO. 9609 OF 2022
Pooja Suresh Bagul
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
296 WRIT PETITION NO. 9610 OF 2022
Madhuri Asaram Bartake
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
297 WRIT PETITION NO. 9611 OF 2022
Dinkar Ravindra Wagh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
298 WRIT PETITION NO. 9612 OF 2022
Balasaheb Rambhau Shinde
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
299 WRIT PETITION NO. 9613 OF 2022
Manisha Jagannath Mahajan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
300 WRIT PETITION NO. 9614 OF 2022
Kavita Tukaram Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND

Page No.34
TET (GROUP).doc

301 WRIT PETITION NO. 9615 OF 2022
Rukmin Baburao Mugale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
302 WRIT PETITION NO. 9730 OF 2022
Ranjeet Venkatrao Dange And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
303 WRIT PETITION NO. 9736 OF 2022
Sachin Pandharinath Pawar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
304 WRIT PETITION NO. 9744 OF 2022
Amol Prakash Sadarao
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
305 WRIT PETITION NO. 9745 OF 2022
Shaikh Rizwan Shaikh Yaqoob
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
306 WRIT PETITION NO. 9746 OF 2022
Kalpita Govinda Kore
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
307 WRIT PETITION NO. 9749 OF 2022
Sumayya Firdos Shaikh Ahmed
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

Page No.35
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
308 WRIT PETITION NO. 9750 OF 2022
Vijay Dnyaneshwar Kurhe
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Principal Secretary And
Others

AND
309 WRIT PETITION NO. 9753 OF 2022
Swapnil Sudam Shinde
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10141 OF 2025
IN WP/9753/2022
Swapnil Sudam Shinde
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
310 WRIT PETITION NO. 9754 OF 2022
Ajay Laxmanrao Kadam
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Principal Secretary And
Others

AND
311 WRIT PETITION NO. 9755 OF 2022
Syed Naseeroddin Hashmi Syed Yousuf Ali
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
312 WRIT PETITION NO. 9757 OF 2022
Jyoti Nivrutirao Kale And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10122 OF 2025

Page No.36
TET (GROUP).doc

IN WP/9757/2022
Jyoti Nivrutirao Kale And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
313 WRIT PETITION NO. 9759 OF 2022
Mateen Khanam Abdul Aleem Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
314 WRIT PETITION NO. 9760 OF 2022
Foziya Minahaj Afzal Ahmed Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
315 WRIT PETITION NO. 9761 OF 2022
Vaishali Ashokrao Dhanpalwar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
316 WRIT PETITION NO. 9762 OF 2022
Naziya Begum Ashfaq Hussain
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
317 WRIT PETITION NO. 9767 OF 2022
Amol Shivaji Patole
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10130 OF 2025
IN WP/9767/2022
Amol Shivaji Patole
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

Page No.37
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
318 WRIT PETITION NO. 9770 OF 2022
Sameera Farheen Abdul Rauf
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
319 WRIT PETITION NO. 9850 OF 2022
Smita Udaysing Sisode
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
320 WRIT PETITION NO. 9853 OF 2022
Akram Fatema Jaleel Ahmed And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
321 WRIT PETITION NO. 9881 OF 2022
Saraswati Govindrao Watane
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
322 WRIT PETITION NO. 9882 OF 2022
Nagesh Pralhad Sonar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
323 WRIT PETITION NO. 9886 OF 2022
Kanchan Harshal Chaudhary
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
324 WRIT PETITION NO. 9887 OF 2022
Ketankumar Jagannath Sonawane

Page No.38
TET (GROUP).doc

VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
325 WRIT PETITION NO. 9891 OF 2022
Shaikh Zakera Asadullah
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
326 WRIT PETITION NO. 9892 OF 2022
Rahul Jijabrao Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
327 WRIT PETITION NO. 9893 OF 2022
Swapnil Damohdar Sangle
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
328 WRIT PETITION NO. 9894 OF 2022
Pravin Pandit Dhundale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
329 WRIT PETITION NO. 9895 OF 2022
Prasad Ravindra Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
330 WRIT PETITION NO. 9898 OF 2022
Mohd Afzal Qureshi Mohd Farooque Qureshi
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND

Page No.39
TET (GROUP).doc

331 WRIT PETITION NO. 9907 OF 2022
Rekha Gangaram Dandegavkar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
332 WRIT PETITION NO. 9920 OF 2022
Dipashree Rajendra Mali
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
333 WRIT PETITION NO. 9924 OF 2022
Dipa Jagjivan Shah
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
334 WRIT PETITION NO. 10074 OF 2022
Ateequr Raheman Muqeet Ahmed
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
335 WRIT PETITION NO. 10075 OF 2022
Asma Begum Aleem Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
336 WRIT PETITION NO. 10076 OF 2022
Zeeshan Zakir Patel
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6321 OF 2023
IN WP/10076/2022
Zeeshan Zakir Patel
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Other

Page No.40
TET (GROUP).doc

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6325 OF 2023
IN WP/10076/2022
Zeeshan Zakir Patel
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Other

AND
337 WRIT PETITION NO. 10077 OF 2022
Balaji Bhanudas Kakade And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
338 WRIT PETITION NO. 10078 OF 2022
Abdullah Saud Bashiruz Zama
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
339 WRIT PETITION NO. 10079 OF 2022
Ammara Maryam Bashiruz Zama
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
340 WRIT PETITION NO. 10080 OF 2022
Mahveen Fatema Mirza Kalim Baig
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
341 WRIT PETITION NO. 10081 OF 2022
Mohammed Ismail Abdul Razzaque
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
342 WRIT PETITION NO. 10082 OF 2022
Abdul Rub Abdul Habeeb

Page No.41
TET (GROUP).doc

VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
343 WRIT PETITION NO. 10083 OF 2022
Neha Mohammed Afsar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
344 WRIT PETITION NO. 10084 OF 2022
Abbasi Mohammed Zubair
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
345 WRIT PETITION NO. 10087 OF 2022
Ganesh Ankush Shelar And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
346 WRIT PETITION NO. 10088 OF 2022
Shital Sunil Badgujar And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
347 WRIT PETITION NO. 10089 OF 2022
Sobiya Nazneen Md Rafiuddin
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
348 WRIT PETITION NO. 10092 OF 2022
Dinesh Pundlik Chaudhari
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND

Page No.42
TET (GROUP).doc

349 WRIT PETITION NO. 10093 OF 2022
Harshal Pandurang Mahajan And Other
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Other

AND
350 WRIT PETITION NO. 10095 OF 2022
Surekha Baban Khedkar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
351 WRIT PETITION NO. 10096 OF 2022
Sarita Kacharu Kathar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
352 WRIT PETITION NO. 10098 OF 2022
Sachin Sonaji Chavan And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
353 WRIT PETITION NO. 10099 OF 2022
Abhijeet Shankarrao Jagtap
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
354 WRIT PETITION NO. 10100 OF 2022
Raju Motising Kuwar And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
355 WRIT PETITION NO. 10103 OF 2022
Rajendra Mohan Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

Page No.43
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
356 WRIT PETITION NO. 10104 OF 2022
Gangasagar Asaram Kadam And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
357 WRIT PETITION NO. 10105 OF 2022
Shital Rajendra More And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
358 WRIT PETITION NO. 10109 OF 2022
Reshma Shivaji Kele And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
359 WRIT PETITION NO. 10110 OF 2022
Rajiv Maroty Gundile
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
360 WRIT PETITION NO. 10113 OF 2022
Muzammil Ambari Abdul Karim
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
361 WRIT PETITION NO. 10240 OF 2022
Shaikh Altaf Danish Chand Pasha
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
362 WRIT PETITION NO. 10248 OF 2022

Page No.44
TET (GROUP).doc

Santosh Devrao Shelke
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
363 WRIT PETITION NO. 10338 OF 2022
Sayyed Taufeek Ahemad Khalil Ahemad
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
364 WRIT PETITION NO. 10356 OF 2022
Mohd Mohtashim Soheb Mohd Muneeruddin
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
365 WRIT PETITION NO. 10445 OF 2022
Rajya Divlya Tadvi
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
366 WRIT PETITION NO. 10447 OF 2022
Dinesh Sakharam Chavan And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
367 WRIT PETITION NO. 10451 OF 2022
Rupali Prakashrao Deshmukh Alias Rupali Deepak Jahagirdar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
368 WRIT PETITION NO. 10452 OF 2022
Natvar Bayja Patale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

Page No.45
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
369 WRIT PETITION NO. 10462 OF 2022
Varsha Sheshrao Gadhave
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
370 WRIT PETITION NO. 10480 OF 2022
Eknath Sopanrao Tale And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
371 WRIT PETITION NO. 10481 OF 2022
Dnyaneshwar Namdev Sangave
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
372 WRIT PETITION NO. 10486 OF 2022
Manoj Dnyanoba More And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
373 WRIT PETITION NO. 10487 OF 2022
Avinash Nagorao Kandhare
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
374 WRIT PETITION NO. 10554 OF 2022
Pathan Parvej Munirkhan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
375 WRIT PETITION NO. 10574 OF 2022
Sudam Bapu Mujage
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

Page No.46
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
376 WRIT PETITION NO. 10628 OF 2022
Jayashri Digambar Borchate
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
377 WRIT PETITION NO. 10643 OF 2022
Hajera Begum Mohammad Yosuf Momin And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
378 WRIT PETITION NO. 10648 OF 2022
Baloch Abdul Haq Gulam Qadar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
379 WRIT PETITION NO. 10649 OF 2022
Shoeb Abdul Sattar Khatik
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
380 WRIT PETITION NO. 10662 OF 2022
Archana Laxman Kuklare
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
381 WRIT PETITION NO. 10665 OF 2022
Mohammed Junaid Mohammed Taher
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
382 WRIT PETITION NO. 10673 OF 2022

Page No.47
TET (GROUP).doc

Sachin Upendra Puranik
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
383 WRIT PETITION NO. 10676 OF 2022
Nitesh Ashok Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
384 WRIT PETITION NO. 10759 OF 2022
Ganesh Pandit Chavan And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
385 WRIT PETITION NO. 10864 OF 2022
Shobha Pundalik Jadhav And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
386 WRIT PETITION NO. 10879 OF 2022
Rakesh Ramesh Koli
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
387 WRIT PETITION NO. 10885 OF 2022
Shaikh Ahmed Shaikh Hameed
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
388 WRIT PETITION NO. 10921 OF 2022
Usmani Aruba Jamal Liyaqat Ali
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH

Page No.48
TET (GROUP).doc

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9543 OF 2025
IN WP/10921/2022
Usmani Aruba Jamal Liyaqat Ali
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
389 WRIT PETITION NO. 10922 OF 2022
Sachin Bhimrao Lokhande And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
390 WRIT PETITION NO. 10923 OF 2022
Swati Bharat Koli
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
391 WRIT PETITION NO. 10935 OF 2022
Dnyaneshwar Waman Jadhav
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
392 WRIT PETITION NO. 10936 OF 2022
Balaji Bajirao Jadhav
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
393 WRIT PETITION NO. 10951 OF 2022
Shilatai Limbaji Naik
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
394 WRIT PETITION NO. 10956 OF 2022
Kundlik Bhanudas Rathod And Others
VERSUS

Page No.49
TET (GROUP).doc

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
395 WRIT PETITION NO. 10960 OF 2022
Archana Damodar Jogdand
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
396 WRIT PETITION NO. 11250 OF 2022
Nasreen Abdul Raheman Shaikh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
397 WRIT PETITION NO. 11253 OF 2022
Priyanka Narsing Mule Alias Priyanka Sachin Pawar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Principal Secretary And
Others

AND
398 WRIT PETITION NO. 11254 OF 2022
Ashanka Narsing Mule
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Principal Secretary And
Others

AND
399 WRIT PETITION NO. 11614 OF 2022
Amol Bapuji Baviskar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
400 WRIT PETITION NO. 11676 OF 2022
Punyrath Surybhan Khandagale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

Page No.50
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
401 WRIT PETITION NO. 11677 OF 2022
Ajay Amarsingh Nimbalkar And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
402 WRIT PETITION NO. 11690 OF 2022
Mohammad Yaqub Mohammad Ibrahim
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
403 WRIT PETITION NO. 12137 OF 2022
Nilesh Maroti Rathod
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretay And Others

AND
404 WRIT PETITION NO. 12139 OF 2022
Anil Gangadhar Salunke And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
405 WRIT PETITION NO. 12149 OF 2022
Vinod Ashok Gadekar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
406 WRIT PETITION NO. 12206 OF 2022
Pathan Mohammad Khan Chand Khan And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretay And Others

AND
407 WRIT PETITION NO. 12207 OF 2022
Digambar Kisan Pawar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

Page No.51
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
408 WRIT PETITION NO. 12222 OF 2022
Sanap Dropadi Vaijinath And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Though Its Secretary Education And Sports
Department And Others

AND
409 WRIT PETITION NO. 12234 OF 2022
Rekha Gokul Chudhari
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
410 WRIT PETITION NO. 12237 OF 2022
Syeda Tanzeela Fatima Sayyad Shamshand
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
411 WRIT PETITION NO. 12488 OF 2022
Abdul Quaiyyum Abdussamad Shaikh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
412 WRIT PETITION NO. 12928 OF 2022
Ahmad Pasha Ismail Nabi Shaikh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
413 WRIT PETITION NO. 12932 OF 2022
Shaikh Tabassum Begum Khaja Qumruddin
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND

Page No.52
TET (GROUP).doc

414 WRIT PETITION NO. 13047 OF 2022
Rohit Vishwanath Tarte
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Additional Chief Secretary And
Others

AND
415 WRIT PETITION NO. 13120 OF 2022
Vaibhav Ramesh Mohane
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
416 WRIT PETITION NO. 72 OF 2023
Nileshkumar Chotulala Chaudhari And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
417 WRIT PETITION NO. 96 OF 2023
Manohar Hiraman Bhoye
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
418 WRIT PETITION NO. 97 OF 2023
Tensingh Baburao Vasave
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
419 WRIT PETITION NO. 98 OF 2023
Dhiraj Laxman Bandichode And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
420 WRIT PETITION NO. 103 OF 2023
Girish Tarachand Chavhan And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

Page No.53
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
421 WRIT PETITION NO. 105 OF 2023
Jayshree Ashok Potawade And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
422 WRIT PETITION NO. 106 OF 2023
Kishore Murlidhar Mahale And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
423 WRIT PETITION NO. 120 OF 2023
Shilpandu Ajay Singh And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

AND
424 WRIT PETITION NO. 210 OF 2023
Bangale Ramchandra Bhujunga And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
425 WRIT PETITION NO. 287 OF 2023
Priti Shantill Chaudhari
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
426 WRIT PETITION NO. 342 OF 2023
Mohsin Ahemad Iqbal Mulla And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND

Page No.54
TET (GROUP).doc

427 WRIT PETITION NO. 343 OF 2023
Swati Swapnil Patil And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
428 WRIT PETITION NO. 351 OF 2023
Laxman Gokul Bagul
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
429 WRIT PETITION NO. 479 OF 2023
Rahul Suresh Dhangar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
431 WRIT PETITION NO. 1082 OF 2023
Mohammed Fuzail Awais Mohammed Fasihuddin
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
432 WRIT PETITION NO. 1201 OF 2023
Sadiya Fatema Anawar Ali Shah
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
433 WRIT PETITION NO. 1514 OF 2023
Farzana Mohammad Shaikh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through District Collector And Others

AND
434 WRIT PETITION NO. 1647 OF 2023
Suryakant Kashinath Katkade
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

Page No.55
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
435 WRIT PETITION NO. 1816 OF 2023
Shaikh Danish Ahmed Shaikh Hameed
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
436 WRIT PETITION NO. 1945 OF 2023
Avinash Prakash Kadam
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
437 WRIT PETITION NO. 1977 OF 2023
Rajendra Govindrao Kalpe
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
438 WRIT PETITION NO. 2004 OF 2023
Vishal Krishnadas Wagh And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
439 WRIT PETITION NO. 2032 OF 2023
Swapnil Kadu Deokar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
440 WRIT PETITION NO. 2055 OF 2023
Qureshi Mudassir Shehzad Naseer Khan
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND

Page No.56
TET (GROUP).doc

441 WRIT PETITION NO. 2056 OF 2023
Pathan Sufiyan Ahmad Khan Pathan Anis Ahmed Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
442 WRIT PETITION NO. 2057 OF 2023
Swati Gautam Sonawane
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
443 WRIT PETITION NO. 2789 OF 2023
Shaziya Anjum Md Azeem Shaikh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And
Another

AND
444 WRIT PETITION NO. 2835 OF 2023
Nitin Madhukar Sonwane
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
446 WRIT PETITION NO. 4202 OF 2023
Sanjay Jayram Chaure And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

AND
447 WRIT PETITION NO. 4203 OF 2023
Shaikh Sabir Shaikh Jamrud Patve And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
448 WRIT PETITION NO. 4205 OF 2023
Monika Lahu Chavan And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

Page No.57
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
449 WRIT PETITION NO. 4208 OF 2023
Vilas Gardya Vasave And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

AND
450 WRIT PETITION NO. 4338 OF 2023
Farooqui Mudassir Ahmed
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
451 WRIT PETITION NO. 4364 OF 2023
Pramod Dilip Gote
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
452 WRIT PETITION NO. 4365 OF 2023
Umesh Gopal Kulkarni
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Principal Secretary And
Others

AND
453 WRIT PETITION NO. 4366 OF 2023
Ravindra Ramdas Patkar And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
454 WRIT PETITION NO. 4367 OF 2023
Ravindra Maharugir Gosavi
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

AND

Page No.58
TET (GROUP).doc

455 WRIT PETITION NO. 4373 OF 2023
Pravin Sudam Deshmukh And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
456 WRIT PETITION NO. 4422 OF 2023
Neetabai Ravindra Chaudhari
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
457 WRIT PETITION NO. 4630 OF 2023
Amol Manohar Pawar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
458 WRIT PETITION NO. 4688 OF 2023
Sandip Abhmanyu Pradhan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
459 WRIT PETITION NO. 4765 OF 2023
Ashwinee Ashok Jadhav
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
460 WRIT PETITION NO. 5419 OF 2023
Kisanrao More Education Society Through Its President
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
461 WRIT PETITION NO. 5421 OF 2023
Pravin Govind Surve
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

Page No.59
TET (GROUP).doc

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7292 OF 2023
IN WP/5418/2023
Gajanan Shahu Keripale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 212 OF 2023
Digvijay Dattatray Inamdar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7300 OF 2023
IN WP/5422/2023
Pratibha Sanjay Bhoye Nee Pratibha Laxman Bagul
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5418 OF 2023
Gajanan Shahu Keripale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7294 OF 2023
IN WP/5417/2023
Shahzadeaalam Mushtaque Sandarwale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1334 OF 2024
IN WP/1374/2024
Fatima Akram Ichalkaranje
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1370 OF 2024
Ikhlaque Azeem Patel
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH

Page No.60
TET (GROUP).doc

WRIT PETITION NO. 1374 OF 2024
Fatima Akram Ichalkaranje
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5420 OF 2023
Nutan Vinayak Pingulkar Nee Nutan Vinayak Shenai
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11230 OF 2023
Amit Mahadev Lad
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary And Ors
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5417 OF 2023
Shahzadeaalam Mushtaque Sandarwale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11215 OF 2023
Manisha Eknath Bagane Name After Marriage Smt. Manisha Jaywant
Korane
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary, Mumbai And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1332 OF 2024
IN WP/1370/2024
Ikhlaque Azeem Patel
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 320 OF 2024
Ashwini Vilas Honmane
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5422 OF 2023
Pratibha Sanjay Bhoye Nee Pratibha Laxman Bagul
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

Page No.61
TET (GROUP).doc

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11241 OF 2023
Inamulhasan Ayyubali Patel
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary School Education And
Sports Dept. Mumbai And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 974 OF 2024
Mohsinahmed Iqbalsab Mulla
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 99 OF 2023
Sumaiya Salil Juwale Nee Sumaia Sayeed Ibji
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1373 OF 2024
Amaranath Kaniram Rathod
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1371 OF 2024
Nilesh Chandu Rathod
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

AND
462 WRIT PETITION NO. 5428 OF 2023
Vidya Vishnu Patil And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
463 WRIT PETITION NO. 5429 OF 2023
Swapnil Bhagwan Patil And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND

Page No.62
TET (GROUP).doc

464 WRIT PETITION NO. 5440 OF 2023
Sonal Rajendra Morey And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
465 WRIT PETITION NO. 5441 OF 2023
Vandana Barku Chaudhari
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
466 WRIT PETITION NO. 5470 OF 2023
Prashant Panditrao Pradhan And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
467 WRIT PETITION NO. 5736 OF 2023
Sunil Dhanraj Bhusare And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
468 WRIT PETITION NO. 6319 OF 2023
Nikhil Nandu Thakare And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

AND
469 WRIT PETITION NO. 6320 OF 2023
Chhaya Dilip Chavan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

AND
470 WRIT PETITION NO. 6322 OF 2023
Shaikh Sanober Yusuf And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

Page No.63
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
471 WRIT PETITION NO. 6345 OF 2023
Swati Kashinath Singanwad
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
472 WRIT PETITION NO. 7152 OF 2023
Umadevi Vasantrao Sonawane
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
473 WRIT PETITION NO. 7154 OF 2023
Sudam Bowaji Pawar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary, Mumbai And
Others

AND
474 WRIT PETITION NO. 7401 OF 2023
Abuzaid Ahmad Mohd Iqbal
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others

AND
475 WRIT PETITION NO. 7402 OF 2023
Pallavi Suresh Shevane And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others

AND
476 WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2023
Poonam Bhikan Shewale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND

Page No.64
TET (GROUP).doc

477 WRIT PETITION NO. 7415 OF 2023
Archana Subhash Garud
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

AND
478 WRIT PETITION NO. 7416 OF 2023
Sweety Samuel D Souza And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

AND
479 WRIT PETITION NO. 7417 OF 2023
Shaikh Bushra Mohammad Mizan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And
Another

AND
480 WRIT PETITION NO. 7418 OF 2023
Maharu Tukaram Bhoye
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

AND
481 WRIT PETITION NO. 7472 OF 2023
Pratiksha Pralhad Wagh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Chief Secretary And Others

AND
482 WRIT PETITION NO. 7587 OF 2023
Laxmi Devidas Umbarkar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
483 WRIT PETITION NO. 7670 OF 2023
Shailesh Kalba Kasabe
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary Department Of School

Page No.65
TET (GROUP).doc

Education And Others

AND
484 WRIT PETITION NO. 8108 OF 2023
Shaikh Husna Yasmeen Shaikh Hameed
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary School Education
Department And Others

AND
485 WRIT PETITION NO. 8135 OF 2023
Shaikh Humera Bano Azam Hussain
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
486 WRIT PETITION NO. 8453 OF 2023
Rutuja Vinot Mulke
VERSUS
The Commissioner Mahrashtra Staet Examination Parishad Pune And
Others

AND
487 WRIT PETITION NO. 8457 OF 2023
Anisa Begam Nurkhan Pathan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports And
Department And Others

AND
488 WRIT PETITION NO. 8459 OF 2023
Vivek Dhanpal Zamare
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports And
Department And Others

AND
489 WRIT PETITION NO. 8460 OF 2023
Mohammad Faisal Sheikh Rahim Bharti
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

Page No.66
TET (GROUP).doc

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9585 OF 2026
IN WP/8460/2023
Mohammad Faisal Sheikh Rahim Bharti
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Education And Sports Dept And Others

AND
490 WRIT PETITION NO. 8461 OF 2023
Mohd Arshad Mohd Rafique Patel
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Education And Sports
Department And Others

AND
491 WRIT PETITION NO. 8462 OF 2023
Mirza Sufyan Baig Mirza Sattar Baig
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others

AND
492 WRIT PETITION NO. 8463 OF 2023
Sadaf Parveen Shafique Khan And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others

AND
493 WRIT PETITION NO. 8513 OF 2023
Manohar Ulaji Khandavi Alias Navasu Alushya Khandavi
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Principal Secreary And
Others

AND
494 WRIT PETITION NO. 8521 OF 2023
Md Rasheed Saleem Ab Qadeer
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others

Page No.67
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
495 WRIT PETITION NO. 8600 OF 2023
Mohammad Nadeem Mohammad Saleem And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
496 WRIT PETITION NO. 8837 OF 2023
Joyti Popatrao Bhosale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
497 WRIT PETITION NO. 8846 OF 2023
Uzma Fatema Rafeeque Baig Mirza And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary Education And
Sports Department And Others

AND
498 WRIT PETITION NO. 8855 OF 2023
Sulbha Kiran Dhamode And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
499 WRIT PETITION NO. 9057 OF 2023
Rajendra Bhaurao Deshmukh And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

AND
500 WRIT PETITION NO. 9760 OF 2023
Javed Khan Aziz Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others

AND

Page No.68
TET (GROUP).doc

501 WRIT PETITION NO. 9763 OF 2023
Savita Bhaurao Tirbude
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others

AND
502 WRIT PETITION NO. 9787 OF 2023
Shahbaz Ahmad Khan Mohd Ismail Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
503 WRIT PETITION NO. 9788 OF 2023
Zahid Khan Kale Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
504 WRIT PETITION NO. 9789 OF 2023
Mohd Yusuf Khan Ismail Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
505 WRIT PETITION NO. 9790 OF 2023
Sajid Iqbal Qamruddin
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
506 WRIT PETITION NO. 9796 OF 2023
Salman Khan Zafar Khan Deshmukh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
507 WRIT PETITION NO. 9797 OF 2023
Imran Khan Aliyar Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

Page No.69
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
508 WRIT PETITION NO. 9802 OF 2023
Khan Irfan Ahmad Ibrahim
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
509 WRIT PETITION NO. 9803 OF 2023
Abdullah Khan Mohd Ibrahim Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
510 WRIT PETITION NO. 9804 OF 2023
Abdul Raheman Khan Ibrahim Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
511 WRIT PETITION NO. 10456 OF 2023
Siddheshwar Nivrutti Kute
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
512 WRIT PETITION NO. 10458 OF 2023
Munizza Jabeen Yusuf Khan And Others
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
513 WRIT PETITION NO. 10465 OF 2023
Naziya Tarannum Abdul Zameer
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9584 OF 2026
IN WP/10465/2023

Page No.70
TET (GROUP).doc

Naziya Tarannum Abdul Zameer
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Thr Education And Sports Dept And Others

AND
514 WRIT PETITION NO. 10698 OF 2023
Mohammad Javed Iqbal Abdul Waheed
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others

AND
515 WRIT PETITION NO. 10700 OF 2023
Mohammad Sagheer Mohammad Shawkat
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Another

AND
516 WRIT PETITION NO. 10815 OF 2023
Raju Jagannath Mehetre
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
517 WRIT PETITION NO. 10816 OF 2023
Nandkishor Dattatray Mhaske
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Throuhg Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
518 WRIT PETITION NO. 10817 OF 2023
Vaibhav Arvind Shingne
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
519 WRIT PETITION NO. 10822 OF 2023
Mohd Ameen Mohd Akbar And Others
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department

Page No.71
TET (GROUP).doc

And Another

AND
520 WRIT PETITION NO. 10877 OF 2023
Ratna Prakash Tarware
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others

AND
521 WRIT PETITION NO. 10878 OF 2023
Sohail Ahmed Ansari Khaleel Ansari
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others

AND
522 WRIT PETITION NO. 10879 OF 2023
Sujit Purushottam Diwate
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Throuhg Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
523 WRIT PETITION NO. 10887 OF 2023
Minal Vasant Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Throuhg Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
524 WRIT PETITION NO. 10888 OF 2023
Janaid Khan Hamid Khan And Others
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Another

AND
525 WRIT PETITION NO. 10943 OF 2023
Ashutosh Arvindrao Rajeingle
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

Page No.72
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
526 WRIT PETITION NO. 11076 OF 2023
Bandu Dhrupatrao Dhakne
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
527 WRIT PETITION NO. 11172 OF 2023
Mohd Waseem Sheikh Amir And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others

AND
528 WRIT PETITION NO. 11173 OF 2023
Mohd Faizan Mohd Sabir
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others

AND
529 WRIT PETITION NO. 11174 OF 2023
Nuzhat Pravin Aabid Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others

AND
530 WRIT PETITION NO. 11175 OF 2023
Darkhsha Tahaseen Kalimoddin
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others

AND
531 WRIT PETITION NO. 11213 OF 2023
Jubair Hussain Mahapule
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Thr. The Principal Secretary And Others

Page No.73
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
532 WRIT PETITION NO. 11214 OF 2023
Varsha Manoj Bhosale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Secretary, Department Of School
Education And Sports And Others

AND
533 WRIT PETITION NO. 11216 OF 2023
Mohammed Sajid Abdul Kadar Patwekar And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
534 WRIT PETITION NO. 11318 OF 2023
Savita Trimbak Ghadge
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Chief Secretary And Others

AND
535 WRIT PETITION NO. 11650 OF 2023
Zameer Khan Yunus Khan And Others
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Another

AND
536 WRIT PETITION NO. 11671 OF 2023
Sayyad Danish Ali Akbarali
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7573 OF 2024
IN WP/11671/2023
Sayyad Danish Ali Akbarali
VERSUS
The Maharashtra State Through Its Secretary And Others

AND

Page No.74
TET (GROUP).doc

537 WRIT PETITION NO. 11696 OF 2023
Mohamad Mudassir Abdul Rashid
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

AND
538 WRIT PETITION NO. 11702 OF 2023
Syed Javed Ali Afsar Ali
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others

AND
539 WRIT PETITION NO. 11846 OF 2023
Ashwini Kashinath Jadhav
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
540 WRIT PETITION NO. 12335 OF 2023
Salim Munaf Tadvi
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
541 WRIT PETITION NO. 12535 OF 2023
Kavita Ankush Shankpal
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
542 WRIT PETITION NO. 12854 OF 2023
Nisar Ahmed Shafique Ahmed (maniya)
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra

AND
543 WRIT PETITION NO. 12869 OF 2023
Mayabai Hilal Bhamare
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

Page No.75
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
544 WRIT PETITION NO. 12939 OF 2023
Mohammad Siddique Ashraf Tadvi Bheel
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra

AND
545 WRIT PETITION NO. 13111 OF 2023
Dmello Larisa Brazil And Ors
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
546 WRIT PETITION NO. 13236 OF 2023
Smita Ramesh Barela
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary Others

AND
547 WRIT PETITION NO. 13375 OF 2023
Sandip Motu Pawar And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13388 OF 2023
Varsha Vinayak Ahire
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13390 OF 2023
Poonam Valmik Shinde And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13344 OF 2023
Swati Arjun Markand
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH

Page No.76
TET (GROUP).doc

WRIT PETITION NO. 13359 OF 2023
Vishal Dilip Salunke
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thorugh The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13387 OF 2023
Uttam Somnath Gangode And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Another
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13389 OF 2023
Swati Ravindra Pagar And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13365 OF 2023
Manisha Kashinath Gaikwad And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13348 OF 2023
Arun Raghunath Mahadik
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13356 OF 2023
Archana Vilas Shelar And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13350 OF 2023
Rupali Babulal Jadhav
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13351 OF 2023
Girish Kailash Sawant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH

Page No.77
TET (GROUP).doc

WRIT PETITION NO. 13362 OF 2023
Sujata Vinayak Awale And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13343 OF 2023
Nilambari Dhananjay Buchude
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13346 OF 2023
Stephie Sushant Ransing Alias Stephie Sebastian John
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13371 OF 2023
Shephie Sushant Ransing Alias Stehie Sebastian John
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13357 OF 2023
Savita Nivrutti Bansode
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

AND
548 WRIT PETITION NO. 13429 OF 2023
Shantanu Sanjay Mali
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
549 WRIT PETITION NO. 13464 OF 2023
Kavita Bhaidas Marathe
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND

Page No.78
TET (GROUP).doc

550 WRIT PETITION NO. 13475 OF 2023
Usha Vasudev Vasave
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
551 WRIT PETITION NO. 14050 OF 2023
Mohammad Muslim Raees Ahmad
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
552 WRIT PETITION NO. 14072 OF 2023
Marathe Sandeep Pandit
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
553 WRIT PETITION NO. 14235 OF 2023
Chapparband Fakir Ajmal Shah Shabbir Shah And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
554 WRIT PETITION NO. 14507 OF 2023
Yasmeen Naeem Ahmad
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
555 WRIT PETITION NO. 14534 OF 2023
Vikas Ravindra Mahirrao
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
556 WRIT PETITION NO. 14600 OF 2023
Sheikh Arif Sheikh Aabed
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department

Page No.79
TET (GROUP).doc

And Others

AND
557 WRIT PETITION NO. 14887 OF 2023
Sonam Sanjay Adhav And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1973 OF 2024
IN WP/14887/2023
Rameshwar Vitthalrao Kakade
VERSUS
Sonam Sanjay Adhav And Others

AND
558 WRIT PETITION NO. 100 OF 2024
Meenakshi Ramulu Pavilollu
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

AND
559 WRIT PETITION NO. 101 OF 2024
Krupali Kailas Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

AND
560 WRIT PETITION NO. 176 OF 2024
Toufiq Khan Rafiq Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others

AND
561 WRIT PETITION NO. 319 OF 2024
Pawan Haridas Timande
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through The Principal Secretary And Others

AND

Page No.80
TET (GROUP).doc

562 WRIT PETITION NO. 323 OF 2024
Saleem Aziz Nalband
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Thr The Principal Secretary Dept. Of School
Edu. And Others

AND
563 WRIT PETITION NO. 325 OF 2024
Owez Ibrahim Panhalkar
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Thr The Principal Secretary Dept. Of School
Edu. Mumbai And Others

AND
564 WRIT PETITION NO. 326 OF 2024
Kuldeep Eknath Desale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

AND
565 WRIT PETITION NO. 327 OF 2024
Kiran Dipak Vyalij
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

AND
566 WRIT PETITION NO. 328 OF 2024
Suvarna Dilip Ahire
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

AND
567 WRIT PETITION NO. 600 OF 2024
Sumant Dattatray Ahire And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

AND

Page No.81
TET (GROUP).doc

568 WRIT PETITION NO. 602 OF 2024
Sayyad Nayab Kausar Zahid Ali
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Ors

AND
569 WRIT PETITION NO. 603 OF 2024
Mohammad Wasif Mohd Ghasi
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others

AND
570 WRIT PETITION NO. 631 OF 2024
Shubham Sandip Bhosle
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
571 WRIT PETITION NO. 638 OF 2024
Suraj Govind Mali
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
572 WRIT PETITION NO. 642 OF 2024
Tejaswani Kiran Mahire And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

AND
573 WRIT PETITION NO. 643 OF 2024
Ramji Sikandar Pinjari And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

AND
574 WRIT PETITION NO. 644 OF 2024
Asha Bandu Sonawane And Ors
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Ors

Page No.82
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
575 WRIT PETITION NO. 645 OF 2024
Rohit Subhash Chavan And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

AND
576 WRIT PETITION NO. 646 OF 2024
Nilesh Anil Baviskar And Ors
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Ors

AND
577 WRIT PETITION NO. 648 OF 2024
Subitcha Paulmani Nadar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Ors

AND
578 WRIT PETITION NO. 658 OF 2024
Sawkar Rahul Shantaram And Ors
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Ors

AND
579 WRIT PETITION NO. 716 OF 2024
Rajendra Yadav Ahire And Ors
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Ors

AND
580 WRIT PETITION NO. 717 OF 2024
Patil Bhushan Shantilal And Ors
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Ors

AND

Page No.83
TET (GROUP).doc

581 WRIT PETITION NO. 718 OF 2024
Sachin Ganpat Chimate
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Ors

AND
582 WRIT PETITION NO. 719 OF 2024
Ramdas Bhaidas Pawara And Ors
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Ors

AND
583 WRIT PETITION NO. 720 OF 2024
Nilofer Nijmuddin Saiyad And Anr
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Ors

AND
584 WRIT PETITION NO. 721 OF 2024
Kiran Dagdu Tadvi
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Ors

AND
585 WRIT PETITION NO. 984 OF 2024
Smita Nandkishor Gaikwad And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
586 WRIT PETITION NO. 985 OF 2024
Bharatsing Goval Vasave And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
587 WRIT PETITION NO. 1246 OF 2024
Santosh Hiryanna Narute And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

Page No.84
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
588 WRIT PETITION NO. 1247 OF 2024
Prajakta Suyakant Phadtare And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

AND
589 WRIT PETITION NO. 1248 OF 2024
Darade Shreenivas Bhagwan And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
590 WRIT PETITION NO. 1250 OF 2024
Gopinath Parashram Palvi
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

AND
591 WRIT PETITION NO. 1251 OF 2024
Priyanka Rangnath Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

AND
592 WRIT PETITION NO. 1276 OF 2024
Suraj Pushpadant Ingale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1330 OF 2024
IN WP/1276/2024
Suraj Pushpadant Ingale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

AND

Page No.85
TET (GROUP).doc

593 WRIT PETITION NO. 1300 OF 2024
Mohd Sabir Abdul Wahab
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Secreary And Others

AND
594 WRIT PETITION NO. 1303 OF 2024
Shoeb Khan Ayyub Khan And Another
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others

AND
595 WRIT PETITION NO. 1304 OF 2024
Imran Javed Hasan Khan And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Education And Sports
Departmnent And Others

AND
596 WRIT PETITION NO. 1305 OF 2024
Mangesh Jayadev Bhimte
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Eduction And Sports Department And
Others

AND
597 WRIT PETITION NO. 1306 OF 2024
Pravinkumar Vasantrao Borkar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports And
Department And Others

AND
598 WRIT PETITION NO. 1307 OF 2024
Ejaz Khan Ramzan Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others

Page No.86
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
599 WRIT PETITION NO. 1308 OF 2024
Madhuri Bhushan Bangde
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports And
Department And Others

AND
600 WRIT PETITION NO. 1312 OF 2024
Ziyaul Haq Abdul Haq
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
601 WRIT PETITION NO. 1313 OF 2024
Asma Parveen Mohammad Noor
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others

AND
602 WRIT PETITION NO. 1314 OF 2024
Mohd Gulam Dastgir Muhammad Noor
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others

AND
603 WRIT PETITION NO. 1315 OF 2024
Rekha Ramdas Waghmare
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others

AND
604 WRIT PETITION NO. 1316 OF 2024
Rajeev Prakashrao Khirodkar
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

Page No.87
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
605 WRIT PETITION NO. 1317 OF 2024
Ujwala Manikrao Wankhede W/d Shri Vivek Raut
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
606 WRIT PETITION NO. 1319 OF 2024
Vivek Kawduji Burile
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others

AND
607 WRIT PETITION NO. 1320 OF 2024
Mohammad Aamir Abdul Sattar
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others

AND
608 WRIT PETITION NO. 1321 OF 2024
Mohammad Noor Abdul Qayyum
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Education And Sports Department
And Others

AND
609 WRIT PETITION NO. 1359 OF 2024
Nitin Shivaji Varkad And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary, Dept. Of School Edu.
And Sports And Others

AND
610 WRIT PETITION NO. 1360 OF 2024
Anuradha Vinayak Joshi
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Mumbai Thr Secretary And Others

Page No.88
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
611 WRIT PETITION NO. 1362 OF 2024
Vahida Raju Shaikh
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Thr The Principal Secretary And Others

AND
612 WRIT PETITION NO. 1369 OF 2024
Dilshadbi Jamalsaheb Mugale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Others

AND
613 WRIT PETITION NO. 1372 OF 2024
Shaikh Ahmad Shaikh Usman
VERSUS
Commissioner Maharashtra State Council Of Examination Pune And
Others

AND
614 WRIT PETITION NO. 1375 OF 2024
Rangnath Ukharam Jadhav And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others

AND
615 WRIT PETITION NO. 1376 OF 2024
Santosh Sundarrao Ghule
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary And Others

AND
616 WRIT PETITION NO. 1412 OF 2024
Ashwini Suresh Shiledar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND

Page No.89
TET (GROUP).doc

617 WRIT PETITION NO. 1413 OF 2024
Bhagyashree Suresh More
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary And Others

AND
618 WRIT PETITION NO. 1425 OF 2024
Rohini Madhukar Pawar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
619 WRIT PETITION NO. 2763 OF 2024
Punam Chatrabhuj Khande
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
620 WRIT PETITION NO. 3678 OF 2024
Shah Barfiwale Bilal Khajamiya And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
621 WRIT PETITION NO. 3679 OF 2024
Shital Biru Katkar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Principal Secretary And
Others

AND
622 WRIT PETITION NO. 3680 OF 2024
Sujata Shahaji Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Principal Secretary And
Others

AND

Page No.90
TET (GROUP).doc

623 WRIT PETITION NO. 3682 OF 2024
Pournima Harishchandra Bhoye And Ors
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary And Ors

AND
624 WRIT PETITION NO. 3868 OF 2024
Sagar Ramchandra Wagh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
625 WRIT PETITION NO. 4439 OF 2024
Bhagyashri Bhagwat Pawar And Ors
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary And Others

AND
626 WRIT PETITION NO. 6357 OF 2024
Raza Ullah Khan Zafar Ullah Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
627 WRIT PETITION NO. 7270 OF 2024
Roshani Baburao Bhoye
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
628 WRIT PETITION NO. 7316 OF 2024
Shaikh Intekhab Aalam Mohammad Rafique And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
629 WRIT PETITION NO. 7317 OF 2024
Tarannum Bano Md Ishaque Bagalkote
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

Page No.91
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
630 WRIT PETITION NO. 7318 OF 2024
Hina Tabassum Qaisar Parvez
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
631 WRIT PETITION NO. 7319 OF 2024
Aafreen Bano Ahemad Khan And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
632 WRIT PETITION NO. 7320 OF 2024
Ahmed Maulaali Hippargi
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
633 WRIT PETITION NO. 7321 OF 2024
Shah Parvez Ahmed Qayyum Shah
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
634 WRIT PETITION NO. 7769 OF 2024
Vinay Bhatu Jadhav
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
635 WRIT PETITION NO. 7827 OF 2024
Syed Aadil Ayyub
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND

Page No.92
TET (GROUP).doc

636 WRIT PETITION NO. 7857 OF 2024
Arshad Khan Safdar Khan And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
637 WRIT PETITION NO. 7858 OF 2024
Momin Mohd Jahangeer Abdul Gafoor Quazi And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
638 WRIT PETITION NO. 8257 OF 2024
Israil Khan Ayyub Khan And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Chief Principal Secretary And
Others

AND
639 WRIT PETITION NO. 8459 OF 2024
Mohd. Javeed Iqbal Hussain
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others

AND
640 WRIT PETITION NO. 8776 OF 2024
Shafeeque Ashraf Ali Chaugale And Others
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
641 WRIT PETITION NO. 9243 OF 2024
Mohammad Danish Mohammad Shakeel And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND

Page No.93
TET (GROUP).doc

642 WRIT PETITION NO. 9624 OF 2024
Sunanda Sukhdeo Shinde Alias Sunita Bhaskar Jejurikar And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9630 OF 2024
Uzma Sadaf Zainuddin Shaikh And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9626 OF 2024
Vaishali Dhanaji Deore W/o Yogesh Y. Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9627 OF 2024
Shital Kailas Jadhav And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9628 OF 2024
Tejaswini Narayan Bahiram And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9631 OF 2024
Vidya Shantaram Kapadnis And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9625 OF 2024
Archana Dadaji Borse And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9629 OF 2024
Chaitali Popat Sasane And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others

AND

Page No.94
TET (GROUP).doc

643 WRIT PETITION NO. 9676 OF 2024
Hina Kausar Mohammad Riyaz
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Chief Principal Secretary And
Others

AND
644 WRIT PETITION NO. 9677 OF 2024
Farooque Shah Latif Shah And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Chief Principal Secretary And
Others

AND
645 WRIT PETITION NO. 9716 OF 2024
Digvijay Dattatray Inamdar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others

AND
646 WRIT PETITION NO. 10509 OF 2024
Lalita Umedrao Chavan Alias Lalita Dattatray Pingale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
647 WRIT PETITION NO. 10512 OF 2024
Vijay Devidas Bagul
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
648 WRIT PETITION NO. 10514 OF 2024
Dipali Gorakhrao Sonawane
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
649 WRIT PETITION NO. 10731 OF 2024

Page No.95
TET (GROUP).doc

Aakash Dattatrya Koparkar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
650 WRIT PETITION NO. 10834 OF 2024
Ganesh Satish Shete
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
651 WRIT PETITION NO. 10865 OF 2024
Harshada Magan Mote
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
652 WRIT PETITION NO. 10883 OF 2024
Sheetal Sukram Pawara
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
653 WRIT PETITION NO. 11146 OF 2024
Ashwini Sahebrao Samindre
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
654 WRIT PETITION NO. 11147 OF 2024
Sushila Sada Chaure And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
655 WRIT PETITION NO. 11564 OF 2024
Radha Bhatu Bhalkar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

Page No.96
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
656 WRIT PETITION NO. 12562 OF 2024
Sandip Kutrya Kokani
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And
Another

AND
657 WRIT PETITION NO. 12563 OF 2024
Shailendra Hiraman Kokani
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Its Principal Secretary And Another

AND
658 WRIT PETITION NO. 12565 OF 2024
Anil Raju Kokani
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And
Another

AND
659 WRIT PETITION NO. 12613 OF 2024
Vilsan Vikram Kokani
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And
Another

AND
660 WRIT PETITION NO. 12614 OF 2024
Nilesh Jalamsing Gavit
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And
Another

AND
661 WRIT PETITION NO. 12808 OF 2024
Manoj Aanaji Gawali And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

Page No.97
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
662 WRIT PETITION NO. 1700 OF 2025
Prafulla Suklal Kokani
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And
Another

AND
663 WRIT PETITION NO. 2038 OF 2025
Mirza Sameer Baig Mirza Altaf Baig
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Thr Education And Sports And Anr

AND
664 WRIT PETITION NO. 2039 OF 2025
Seema Motilal Kadave
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Thr Education And Sports And Ors

AND
665 WRIT PETITION NO. 2040 OF 2025
Vikas Sudhir Wankhede
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others

AND
666 WRIT PETITION NO. 2041 OF 2025
Chetan Vijayrao Bijawe And Anr
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Thr Education And Sports Dept. And Ors

AND
667 WRIT PETITION NO. 2042 OF 2025
Ku. Dipali Samadhan Dawange
VERSUS
The Education Officer (secondary) Z.p. Buldana And Ors

AND
668 WRIT PETITION NO. 2043 OF 2025

Page No.98
TET (GROUP).doc

Vikrant Sanjay Khanderao
VERSUS
The Education Officer (secondary) Buldan And Ors

AND
669 WRIT PETITION NO. 2044 OF 2025
Ku. Tejaswini Bhushanrao Bangde
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary Department Of Education And
Sports And Ors

AND
670 WRIT PETITION NO. 2045 OF 2025
Durga Narayanrao Hore
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Thr Education And Sports And Ors

AND
671 WRIT PETITION NO. 2046 OF 2025
Ku. Monika Amardip Kharkar
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Thr Education And Sports And Ors

AND
672 WRIT PETITION NO. 2047 OF 2025
Mahesh Nanaji Karemore
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra Thr Education And Sports And Ors

AND
673 WRIT PETITION NO. 2219 OF 2025
Vilas Pandit Gavit
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others

AND
674 WRIT PETITION NO. 2271 OF 2025
Rani Sudam Gosavi Alias Pratibha Makarand Gosavi
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another

Page No.99
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
675 WRIT PETITION NO. 3024 OF 2025
Arshee Anjum Mohd Wiqar Shaikh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
676 WRIT PETITION NO. 3197 OF 2025
Harichandra Barku Chaudhari And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Chief Principal Secretary And
Others

AND
677 WRIT PETITION NO. 5608 OF 2025
Punam Panditrao Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And
Another

AND
678 WRIT PETITION NO. 8915 OF 2025
Heena Kausar Abdul Sattar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8598 OF 2025
Kavita Nana Thakur Alias Dhanshree Kailas Thakur
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And
Another
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8913 OF 2025
Nupur Madhukar Deshmukh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretarya Nd Others

AND

Page No.100
TET (GROUP).doc

679 WRIT PETITION NO. 9339 OF 2025
Sangita Pandurang Pawara Alias Sangita Makansin Pawara
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
680 WRIT PETITION NO. 1805 OF 2026
Archana Vinayak Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others

AND
681 WRIT PETITION NO. 1813 OF 2026
Nana Uttam Karande
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others

AND
682 WRIT PETITION NO. 9431 OF 2026
Uzma Nahid Abdul Sattar Shaikh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretry And Others

AND
683 WRIT PETITION NO. 9816 OF 2026
Anil Arvind Valvi And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others`

AND
685 WRIT PETITION NO. 11707 OF 2026
Aasiyabano Ghulamdastageer Ansari And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Thr Secretary And Others

AND
686 WRIT PETITION NO. 11961 OF 2026
Laxman Sakharam Gavit And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Chief Principal Secretary And

Page No.101
TET (GROUP).doc

Others

AND
687 WRIT PETITION NO. 913 OF 2024
Ilyas Khan Nisar Khan Sikkalgar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
688 WRIT PETITION NO. 11102 OF 2024
Vijaya Dilip Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

AND
689 WRIT PETITION NO. 9304 OF 2025
Waahid Shah Gulab Shab
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others

AND
690 WRIT PETITION NO. 10265 OF 2025
Atiya Kausar Shaikh Usmangani Khatik
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others

AND
691 WRIT PETITION NO. 10735 OF 2025
Shaikh Afser Yunus
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others

AND
692 WRIT PETITION NO. 100 OF 2023
Hemant Somnath Thakare And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

AND

Page No.102
TET (GROUP).doc

693 WRIT PETITION NO. 101 OF 2023
Parag Shaligaram Chaudhari And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
694 WRIT PETITION NO. 102 OF 2023
Vaishali Dadaso Shevate And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6123 OF 2024
IN WP/102/2023
Nirmala Santosh Ghule
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

AND
695 WRIT PETITION NO. 104 OF 2023
Sagar Mohan Rajbhoj And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
696 WRIT PETITION NO. 5439 OF 2023
Sachin Suresh Badole And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
697 WRIT PETITION NO. 10923 OF 2023
Jyoti Ashok Shirsat And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others

AND
698 WRIT PETITION NO. 9872 OF 2022
Tanveer Shah Tafazzul Shah
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

Page No.103
TET (GROUP).doc

AND
699 WRIT PETITION NO. 11714 OF 2022
Shivkanta Murlidhar Biradar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
700 WRIT PETITION NO. 14113 OF 2023
Shaikh Tanveer Shaikh Habeeb
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

AND
701 WRIT PETITION NO. 62 OF 2026
Asma Ramzan Pathan And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
____________________________________________________________
Appearance :-
Advocate for the Petitioners :-
Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate, i/by Adv. S. R. Sapkal and Adv.
Priyanka Kale and Atharva D. Khedkar,
Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate i/by Adv. Ashwini
Navjyot Bandiwadekar,
Mr. Suresh S. Pakale, Senior Advocate i/by Ms. Malgaonkar Padmaja
U., Mr. Shinde Rahul Ashok, and Mr. Shankar M. Katkar,
Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukkh, Senior Advocate i/by Adv. Kunal Arvind
Kale,
Adv. A. M. Inamdar, Adv. A. R. Syed, Adv. Arvind Gopalrao Ambetkar,
Adv. Ateeque Mohd., Adv. Pralhad D. Bachate, Adv. K. D. Bade Patil,
Adv. D. S. Bagul, Adv. Harish S. Bali, Adv. Parag Vijay Barde, Adv.
Prashant S. Bhavake, Adv. Mahesh S. Bhosale, Adv. Sidheshwar N.
Biradar, Adv. Yogesh B. Bolkar, Adv. Shailesh P. Brahme, Adv. Chetan
G. Patil, Adv. Balaji S. Chondhekar, Adv. Ajit B. Chormal, Adv. D. J.
Choudhary, Adv. Digvijay R. Khapre, Adv. Pushkar A. Deshpande, Adv.
Deepak Sathe, Adv. Sanjeev Bapu Deore, Adv. Abhay G. Deshmukh,
Adv. S. S. Deshpande, Adv. Sachin Deshpande, Adv. Vivek J. Dhage,
Adv. Dhananjay Rananaware, Adv. R. B. Dhore, Adv. Vithal H. Dighe,

Page No.104
TET (GROUP).doc

Adv. Sushant V. Dixit, Adv. R. J. Godbole, Adv. G. J. Pahilwan, Adv.
Ganesh Asaram Gadhe, Adv. Shahaji B. Ghatol Patil, Adv. Girish S.
Rane, Adv. Ravi Balasaheb Gite, Adv. Bhaskar Parmeshwar Gonare,
Adv. Nikita N. Gore, Adv. Nitin S. Ingle, Adv. Kailas B. Jadhav, Adv.
Samadhan H. Jadhav, Adv. Rakesh Nemichandji Jain, Adv. Vishal S.
Kadam a/w. Ms. Pratiksha C. Kale, Adv. N. B. Kalwaghe, Adv. D. A.
Karnik, Adv. Ram D. Karode, Adv. Shankar M. Katkar, Adv. Shrirang
Katneshwarkar, Adv. Kazi S. S., Adv. Sabahat T. Kazi, Adv. Shrimant
Ravsaheb Kedar, Adv. Sameer Khan, Adv. Akshay D. Khot, Adv.
Pundlik S. Kochar, Adv. S. R. Kolhare, Adv. Sanjay Ramlal Kolhare,
Adv. Sanjay D. Kotkar, Adv. Gajanan K. Kshirsagar, Adv. Mukul S.
Kulkarni, Adv. Suvidh S. Kulkarni, Adv. Mandar G. Bagkar, Adv.
Lalitkumar S. Mahajan, Adv. Surekha P. Mahajan, Adv. Padmaja U.
Malgaonkar, Adv. Bhooshan R. Mandalik, Adv. Irfan D. Maniyar, Adv.
Khushbu Ghanashyam Marwadi, Adv. Umesh G. Mitkari, Adv. Ankush
N. Nagargoje, Adv. Girish K. Naik Thigle, Adv. Ramesh Vitthal
Naiknavare, Adv. P. S. Kshirsagar, Adv. Vilas S. Panpatte, Adv.
Vishalkumar S. Pardeshi, Adv. Paresh B. Patil (Borse), Adv. Jitendra
Vijay Patil, Adv. Prafullasing H. Patil, Adv. Prakashsing B. Patil, Adv.
Rohit Nitin Patil, Adv. Vikram Tanajirao Patil, Adv. Vinod Prakash
Patil, Adv. Pavan K. Raulkar, Adv. Ajay D. Pawar, Adv. Aniket
Bhausaheb Pawar, Adv. Vaibhav U. Pawar, Adv. Rahul R. Shelke, Adv.
Ritu P. Jog, Adv. Sachin B. Thorat, Adv. Amarnath S. Sakhare, Adv.
Vitthal G. Salgare, Adv. Mahendra N. Sandhyanshiv, Adv. D. V. Sapkal,
Adv. Sandip R. Sapkal, Adv. Majit S. Shaikh, Adv. Shivaji T. Shelke,
Adv. P. N. Shende, Adv. Rahul Ashok Shinde, Adv. Shrikrashna B.
Solanke, Adv. Rahul Rajendra Suryawanshi, Adv. Rajendra R.
Suryawanshi, Adv. Azizoddin R. Syed, Adv. G. R. Syed, Mr. Yadnesh V.
Dharmadhikari h/f. Adv. Ajay G. Talhar, Adv. Vikas B. Tapkir, Adv.
Sagar Tembekar, Adv. Vedika Thakare, Adv. Dhananjay B. Thoke, Adv.
Sambhaji Subhashrao Tope, Adv. Manish Purushottam Tripathi, Adv.
Tukaram M. Venjane, Adv. Vinod P. Sangvikar, Adv. Vishnu B. Madan,
Adv. Ramesh I. Wakade, Adv. Vijay Shivaji Wakale, Adv. S. S.
Wankhede, Adv. Yogesh C. Patil.

Page No.105
TET (GROUP).doc

Advocate for the Respondents :-
Adv. Anup R. Nikam for Commissioner, Maharashtra State
Examination Council, Pune, Adv. Abhijeet V. Thombre, Adv. Ashok
Janrao, Adv. Bhaskar Parmeshwar Gonare, Adv. B. S. Deshmukh, Adv.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Bagul, Adv. Rahul Bhagawantrao Bagul, Adv.
Mirza Mazhar Javed Baig, Adv. Ravi Raosaheb Bangar, Adv.
Bhausaheb B. Bhise, Adv. Pravin Dilip Biradar, Adv. Yogesh G.
Birajdar, Adv. Poonam V. Bodke Patil, Adv. Yogesh B. Bolkar, Adv.
Uttam Bajirao Bondar, Adv. Rupeshkumar C. Bora, Adv. Rakesh C.
Bramhankar, Adv. Vaishali S. Chaudhari, Adv. Ashish R. Dand, Adv.
Rajendra V. Dasalkar, Adv. Bhausaheb S. Deshmukh, Adv. Mahesh S.
Deshmukh, Adv. Vaibhav G. Deshmukh, Adv. Vijay Vasantrao
Deshmukh, Adv. Sadashiv N. Deve, Adv. Sadanand Sadashiv Deve,
Adv. Shantaram Ravji Dheple, Adv. Ranjit D. Gaikwad h/f. Adv. Dilip
Bodake, Adv. R. J. Godbole, Adv. Kamaloddin Nuruddin Farooqui,
Adv. Luqmaan Kaseem Farooqui, Adv. Pramod S. Gaikwad, Adv.
Praveen B. Gamot, Adv. Aniruddha B. Ghule, Adv. Girish S. Rane, Adv.
Umesh Babanrao Gite, Adv. Madhur A. Golegaonkar, Adv. Vivekanand
Vishwambhar Gujar, Adv. Subhas V. Gutte, Adv. Adinath B. Jagtap,
Adv. Akshay Subhash Jagtap, Adv. Manjusha S. Jagtap, Adv. Rakesh
Nemichandji Jain, Adv. Dhiraj R. Jethliya, Adv. Sandeep
Chandreshakhar Joshi, Adv. Nitin Shamrao Kadam for Zilla Parishad,
Nanded, Adv. Y. M. Khan, Adv. Abhinay D. Khot, Adv. Amol Ashok
Kokad, Adv. Pratik P. Kothari, Adv. Bhushan B. Kulkarni, Adv. Girish N.
Kulkarni (Mardikar), Adv. Mukul S. Kulkarni, Adv. S. S. Kulkarni, Adv.
Supriya Kulkarni, Adv. Sachin Vijay Kuptekar, Adv. Manjushri V.
Narwade, Adv. Datta A. Madake, Adv. Lalitkumar S. Mahajan, Adv.
Milind S. Mahajan, Adv. Sunil B. Jadhav, Adv. Uday S. Malte, Adv.
Satish S. Manale, Adv. V. M. Maney, Adv. Vivek J. Dhage, Adv. Irfan D.
Maniyar, Adv. Sachin B. Munde, Adv. Kartik D. Mundhe, Adv. Nikhil S.
Tekale, Adv. Ankush N. Nagargoje, Adv. Prashant R. Nangare, Adv.
Sharad V. Natu, Adv. Ramchandra J. Nirmal, Adv. Prashant D.
Suryawanshi, Adv. Vilas S. Panpatte, Adv. Amol N. Patale, Adv.
Azaroddin Chandpasha Pathan, Adv. Hanmant V. Patil, Adv. Jitendra
Vijay Patil, Adv. Nayana P. Patil, Adv. Pravin Shamrao Patil, Adv.
Swapnil S. Patil, Adv. Ajay D. Pawar, Adv. Pravin N. Kalani, Adv.
Santosh Baburao Pulkundwar, Adv. S. R. Yadav-Lonikar, Adv. S. S.

Page No.106
TET (GROUP).doc

Randive, Adv. Ashwin V. Sakolkar, Adv. Milind B. Sandanshiv, Adv.
Amol Shivajirao Sawant, Adv. U. A. Sayyed, Adv. Umair Pasha A.
Quader Sayyed, Adv. Jayant Ramanlal Shah, Adv. Shahaji K. Shinde,
Adv. Nasimoddin R. Shaikh, Adv. Tarek Mobin H. Shaikh, Adv.
Avishkar S. Shelke, Adv. Bhagwat Achutrao Shinde, Adv. Kishor T.
Shirrurkar, Adv. Shrishail Sakhare, Adv. Aditya N. Sikchi, Adv. V. R.
Patil, Adv. Maheshkumar S. Sonawane, Adv. Sunil S. Shinde, Adv.
Gauri Shelke, Adv. Prashant V. Suryawanshi, Adv. Masood Chand
Syed, Adv. Ajay G. Talhar, Adv. Pradeepkumar R. Tandale, Adv.
Bhagwan V. Thombre, Adv. Yogita S. Thorat, Adv. Sushilkumar H.
Tripathi, Adv. Hrishikesh V. Tungar, Adv. Dinesh L. Vakil, Adv.
Laharimanohar D. Vakil, Adv. Vikrant S. Valse, Adv. Vinod M. Vibhute,
Adv. Pratap B. Vikhe, Adv. Vivek Vasantrao Bhavthankar, Adv.
Shrinivas S. Wagh, Adv. Santosh R. Yadav, Adv. S. R. Yamani, Adv.
Roshan S. Sawant, Adv. Monish R. Ghavri.

Advocate/AGP’s for the Respondent - State :-
Mr. V. D. Hon, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. P. S. Patil, Addl.GP., Mr. P. K.
Lakhotiya, Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, Mr. R. S. Wani, Mr. S. R. Yadav-
Lonikar, Mr. K. N. Lokhande, Mr. N. S. Tekale, AGPs
_____________________________________________________________

CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026

JUDGMENT :- (Per - Jitendra Jain, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent taken up

for final hearing. This group of matters is transferred from the

Principal Seat and other Benches of this Court to the Aurangabad

Bench since all the petitions raises common challenge. The notice of

Page No.107
TET (GROUP).doc

hearing of these petitions was circulated to all the Benches so that all

counsel can be heard.

2. This petition relates to cancellation of results of the

petitioners, who appeared for the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET),

which is mandatory for teaching students of Standards I to VIII. The

results were cancelled on account of malpractices whereby the mark-

sheets of the candidates were altered by recording marks higher than

the marks actually obtained. For example, if A has secured 40 marks,

the mark sheet was altered to show that A has secured 60 marks.

Before we proceed, it is important to narrate the role of a teacher in

the life of a student and more particularly that of a teacher teaching

primary school students.

Role of a Teacher :-

3. Former President (Late) Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam observed:

“The purpose of education is to make good human beings with skill

and expertise... Enlightened human beings can be created by

teachers.” Mustafa Kemal Atatürk said: “A good teacher is like a

candle—it consumes itself to light the way for others.”

4. It is said that it takes a big heart to help shape little minds.

A teacher does not simply teach but inspires and changes the lives of

future generations. The role of a teacher is significant and critical in

Page No.108
TET (GROUP).doc

training the young minds of students to think critically. Teachers are

one of the foundational pillars of the society. They play important

role to shape not just young minds but also future citizens by

imparting knowledge, fostering critical thinking, instilling discipline

and integrity, encouraging curiosity, and acting as role models and

guides.

5. This great country is blessed with teachers like Mr. Jeevan

Mithari who treks 5 km to reach a place – Kavaltek Dhangarwada,

where only 3 families stay and in which there are only 2 girl students.

It is the zeal and the spirit of such a teacher for training the young

minds and future generation of this country that we are fortunate to

have such teachers even in an environment full of material

competition.

6. We appreciate the efforts put in by the teachers of this

Country by teaching and training not only the young minds but at

times are entrusted with many non-teaching jobs like deployment

during election period, census etc. We are also conscious of the fact

that in rural areas it is a challenging task for a teacher to teach with

the limited infrastructure and resources of the school. Despite of such

challenges, the teachers of this country render a great service by

discharging their duties tirelessly with love and affection. We take

Page No.109
TET (GROUP).doc

this opportunity to pay our respects to such teachers of this country.

7. We are perturbed by the issues raised in these petitions which

we are called upon to adjudicate since it deals with tampering of

marks of exams meant for teachers.

Challenge Raised :-

8. This group of writ petitions is filed by petitioners who are

either teaching in primary or secondary schools or are lecturers in

junior colleges or are teachers in schools managed by minority

institutions and by individuals aspiring to take up a job as teacher for

teaching students of Standards I to VIII. Some of the petitioners,

though not in service as teachers, but aspiring to be teachers

appeared for the exam since TET exam is made compulsory for

teaching students of Standards I to VIII The challenge is to the orders

dated 10 June 2022, 3 August 2022, 18 August 2022 and 14 October

2022 leading to freezing of Shalarth ID, withholding of salaries etc.,

consequent to the results of around 7,874 candidates who appeared

for Teachers Eligibility Test (TET – 2019) held on 19 January 2020

which included present petitioners, were cancelled and these

candidates were permanently debarred from appearing in the said

exams. The malpractices were found in exams of TET – 2018 and

TET – 2019. For the sake of convenience and by consent of all the

Page No.110
TET (GROUP).doc

parties Writ Petition No.9430 of 2022 is taken as a lead matter.

Pleadings filed in this petition was agreed to be the basis for deciding

all these petitions.

Brief Facts :-

9. By Government Resolution dated 23 August 2013,

respondent no.1-State made TET exams to be compulsorily to be

cleared by individuals for appointment of teachers for teaching in

Standard I to VIII, pursuant to Right of Children to Free and

Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE). The responsibility to conduct

the exam was entrusted under this GR to respondent no. 3 and 4 –

Council.

10. The above condition of clearing compulsory TET

examination was unsuccessfully challenged before this Court and

later on before the Apex Court.

11. On 7 November 2019, Council issued advertisement for

conducting online TET – 2019 exam. The process of filling up

application forms, allotment of seat number, declaration of result, etc.

was entirely online. The process of conducting the test was

outsourced to one G. A. Software Company. Pursuant to the said

advertisement, petitioners appeared for exam which was conducted

on 19 January 2020 and which coincided with the pandemic leading

Page No.111
TET (GROUP).doc

to ultimate lock-down of the World and in India from 20 March 2020.

The exam paper was in the form of multiple-choice questions (MCQ).

Carbon-copy of the answer sheet attempted was retained by the

candidates. Original copy was taken by the authority conducting the

exam and this copy was scanned and retained by the Council. The

candidates were later on furnished with model answers also. The

results of the test came to be declared online in August 2020 and

16,705 candidates out of more than 3,00,000 who appeared were

declared to have cleared the said test.

12. On 16 December 2021, respondent no.3-Chairman of the

Council lodged an FIR No. 56/2021 with regard to malpractices

practiced during the above exam which got surfaced while

investigation was being conducted by the police authorities with

regard to MHADA exam scam. In the said FIR, name of Mr. Pritesh

Deshmukh of G. A. Software and some officials of the Council figured

as being involved in the malpractices of altering the mark sheets. This

FIR was filed after continuous communications between the police

and the Council since the TET exam scam surfaced during ongoing

investigation of MHADA exams by the police authorities. The mark-

sheets of around 7,880 candidates came to be altered as per the said

FIR.

Page No.112
TET (GROUP).doc

13. Similarly, during the investigation with regard to the

MHADA examination, police authorities also got information of

tampering of marks with regard to the TET examination conducted in

the year 2018. In the 2018 TET examination, 17,349 candidates

appeared. 9,677 candidates cleared the examination, and it was

found out that around 1,700 mark-sheets were tampered with.

Respondent authorities, therefore, filed an FIR with the police

authorities bearing No. 58 of 2021.

14. On 10 June 2022, respondent -State addressed a letter to

the respondent - Council directing to hold an enquiry and complete

the same within 60 days. In the said letter, it is also stated that results

of 7,874 candidates out of successful 16,705 candidates were found

to be tampered in the TET 2019 exam. This letter also directs the

Council to levy appropriate penalty including permanently debarring

such individuals from appearing for the exam, to freeze Shalarth IDs

and salaries of such teachers and to direct employers to take

appropriate action due enquiry against the in-service teachers.

15. On 3 August 2022, respondent - Council after conducting

investigation passed impugned order holding that results of 7880

candidates were found to have been tampered with and these

candidates though failed were declared as passed or marks were

Page No.113
TET (GROUP).doc

increased. The order further states that in the absence of Executive

Committee, powers are being exercised by the Council. The order

debars 7,880 candidates permanently from appearing for the said

exam. Similar order was passed on 14 October 2022 in respect of

about 1,700 candidates who appeared for TET – 2018 exam.

16. It is on the above backdrop that the present petitions are

instituted across the State before the Principal and other benches of

this Court challenging the cancellation of the petitioners’ results of

TET – 2018 and TET – 2019 exams and permanently debarring them

from appearing for examination and further freezing their Shalarth

ID and their salaries. This Court by way of interim relief in lead

petition on 20 September 2022 directed the services of the petitioners

to be continued and also ordered salaries to be paid. We are informed

that similar interim orders were passed in other petitions also.

Brief submissions of Mr. Sapkal, Senior Counsel in Writ Petition
No.9430 of 2022 :-

17. Mr. Sapkal, learned senior counsel opening for the

petitioners submitted that before imposing a permanent bar on the

petitioners to appear for exams, principle of natural justice was not

followed. No show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners before

levying such a harsh penalty nor any opportunity of hearing was

Page No.114
TET (GROUP).doc

accorded. He, therefore, submitted that on this ground itself, the

impugned orders should be set aside and quashed. He further

submitted that the Maharashtra State Council of Examination Duties

and Powers of Chairperson, Regional Chairperson, Assistant

Commissioner and Conditions of Service of Employees Regulations,

2010 (2010 Regulations) does not empower the Commissioner to

impose such a penalty nor such a harsh penalty is provided for in the

Regulations. It is his submission that if the statute provides for a

particular authority to act, then it is that very authority who should

exercise the power and not any superior authority. He further

submitted that it is an admitted fact that the original records have

been destroyed and if that be so, then the present proceedings have

been initiated at the behest of the police authorities and the State and

not by the concerned authorities who were forced to act under the

Act. He submits that the impugned order is based on suspicion and

surmises and no charge-sheet has been filed against any of the

petitioners. He submitted that there is no material for cancellation of

result and imposing such a penalty.

18. Learned senior counsel relied upon Regulations 8, 11 and

13 of Part II Chapter V of the 2010 Regulations in support of his

submission that the present orders are passed without jurisdiction

Page No.115
TET (GROUP).doc

and, therefore, are required to be quashed and set aside since

Examination Committee has not passed the impugned orders.

19. He further submitted that the present order is made

applicable even to the candidates of Minority Institutions, Junior

Lecturers and Teachers of Standard IX and X class and who only

appeared for examination for better prospects. He submitted that the

said test was not required for these petitioners and, therefore, the

impugned orders passed against them are bad in law. He also

submitted that in the meantime many of the petitioners have

qualified by clearing CTET exam equivalent to TET but the penalty

imposed may come in their way to continue in service.

20. Learned senior counsel relied upon following decisions in

support of his above submissions :-

i) Chandrika Jha vs. State of Bihar & Ors.1
ii) Vijay Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors.2
iii) The Joint Action Committee of Airlines Pilots
Associations of India & Ors. vs. The Director General of
Civil Aviation & Ors.3

21. He, therefore, prayed for quashing of the impugned orders

by allowing the petition.

1 AIR 1984 SC 322
2 AIR 2012 SC 2840
3 AIR 2011 SC 2220

Page No.116
TET (GROUP).doc

Summary of written submissions filed by learned counsel Mr. Vilas
Panpatte on behalf of petitioners in Writ Petition No.9582 of 2022 &
other petitions and who later on also addressed the Court :-

22. Mr. Panpatte, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ

Petition No.9582 of 2022 submitted that the petitioners have

completed more than 12 years of service from the date of their

appointment and have successfully completed probation period and

have been granted the status of permanent employees under the

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)

Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act). It is his submission that if today

their names are not included in Shalarth ID and they are made to

work without payment, then it will result into unemployment and

would be contrary to Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of

India. He submitted that as per Section 23 read with Rule 19(2) of

the Right to Education Rules, 9 chances are given for acquiring

additional qualification of TET.

23. He further submitted that petitioners are being penalised

for no fault of theirs. He further submitted that any order passed

contrary to principles of natural justice are illegal and bad in law and

in any case the punishment cannot be disproportionate. He submitted

that time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has protected the

services of the teachers who have been working for a long period and

Page No.117
TET (GROUP).doc

has further time has been given for clearing TET exam. This would

also ensure continuity in elementary education of children. He

submitted that the petitioners have not been named in the FIR nor

any statement is recorded nor any kind of inquiry has been made

which will implicate the petitioners in the alleged malpractices.

24. Alternatively, he submitted that the impugned performance

of the petitioners should be discarded and an opportunity should be

given to appear for the TET exam in future. He submitted that if the

petitions are not allowed then many schools would be closed for

want of teachers and the teachers would become unemployed,

though having served for more than 12 years. He also submitted that

condition of TET exam is not applicable to minority institution.

25. Mr. Panpatte, learned counsel relied upon following

decisions in support his above submissions :-

(a) Dr. M. S. Mudhol & Anr. vs. Shri S. D. Halegkar & Ors.4
(b)Pandurang Narayan Kanekar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.5
(c) B. C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India & Ors.6
(d) Nidhi Kaim vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.7
(e) State of U.P. vs. Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust & Ors.8

4 1993 II CLR 389
5 2022 (3) Mh.L.J.687
6 AIR 1996 SC 484
7 (2016) 7 SCC 615
8 Review Petition No.53434 of 2025 dated 29.05.2026

Page No.118
TET (GROUP).doc

26. In view of above, he submitted that the petition may be

allowed in terms of prayer clauses mentioned in the petitions.

Submission of Mr. Bandiwadekar, Senior Counsel in Writ Petition No.
209 of 2023 & others :-

27. Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned senior counsel submitted that in

the impugned order dated 3 August 2022, reference has been made

to 11 documents which were never confronted with to the petitioners

before passing the impugned order. He submitted that the impugned

order has been passed without complying with the basic principles of

natural justice. Out of 11 documents referred to in the impugned

order, documents at item nos. 3 to 11 are annexed with the reply of

the contesting respondent no. 2. The petitioners, therefore, amended

the petition to challenge the resolution referred to in the impugned

order, which formed the basis for passing the impugned order.

28. Learned senior counsel further submitted that none of the

candidates / petitioners has been made accused or witness nor has

any inquiry made from them in the criminal proceedings referred to

in paragraph no. 1 of the impugned order. He submitted that out of

more than 3,00,000 candidates who had appeared, there were 7,880

candidates against whom complaints were made. Verification of

papers was done only in respect of these 7,880 candidates and all of

Page No.119
TET (GROUP).doc

them have been declared unsuccessful. He submitted that the

impugned order is passed without due application of mind, since it

has been passed without referring to the correct legal provisions.

There is a reference to Section 8 Chapter V of the Maharashtra State

Council of Examinations Act 1998 (1998 Act), whereas no such

reference can be found in the said Act and can only be found in 2010

Regulation, indicating clear non-application of mind by the

authorities.

29. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, referred to certain

provisions of the 1998 Act and submitted that as per Section 18, the

State Council shall constitute various committees, namely, Academic

Committee, Executive Committee, Finance Committee and

Examination Committee. Referring to Section 23 of the said Act, he

submitted that powers and duties of the State Council includes power

to conduct examination and to award certificates to candidates

passing various examinations and to make regulations for purpose of

carrying into effect the provisions of the 1998 Act. He further

referred to Section 37 which empowers the State Council to make

regulations. He submitted that none of the provisions of the 1998 Act

empower the State Council to cancel the examination result and to

impose penalty.

Page No.120
TET (GROUP).doc

30. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, referred to the

Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices at University, Board and

Other Specified Examination Act, 1982 which is referred in the

impugned order dated 3 August 2022. He submitted that TET

examination is not notified as examination under Section 2(b) of the

said Act. He further made reference to Sections 7 and 8 of the

aforesaid Act which provides for punishment only on conviction. He

submitted that in the present case, no criminal proceedings are

initiated against the petitioner and, therefore, reliance on these

provisions in the impugned order is illegal.

31. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, referred to 2010

Regulations and more particularly, Chapter V of Part II which deals

with the duties and powers of Chairperson, Commissioner, Regional

Chairperson, Assistant Commissioner and Working Committees

Regulations. He referred to Chapter V which deals with committees

of the State Council. As per regulation 8(2) of said Chapter V, duties

and functions of the Executive Committee are prescribed. Sub-clause

(t) of the said Regulation provides for laying down the procedure and

specifying the penalties to be imposed by the State Council. He

submitted that no such procedure has been laid, neither has the

penalty been specified. He further submitted that even this

Page No.121
TET (GROUP).doc

Regulation only provides for laying down the procedure and

specifying the penalty and not to cancel the examination and impose

the penalty. Learned senior counsel submitted that in the absence of

any procedure being laid down and specifying the penalty by the

Executive Committee, the impugned orders permanently debarring

the petitioners from appearing in examination is without jurisdiction.

32. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, brought to our attention

letter dated 8 February 2022 of the Council wherein the Expert

Committee of 6 members was formed for examining the results of

these 7,880 candidates. He submitted that the committee gave its

report on 14 February 2022, within 6 days, stating that the results of

7,880 candidates are tainted. The report further states that the

verification was done by the clerk. He, therefore, submitted that the

expert committee has merely signed the report without verifying and,

therefore, it has no evidentiary value. He submitted that clerks would

not have any expertise on the questions and answers which are

required to be verified and, therefore, the report prepared on the

basis of the verification done by such clerks has to be discarded.

33. Learned senior counsel further submitted that time and

again the State directed the Council to lay down a procedure and,

thereafter, take action for levying penalty. However, by resolution

Page No.122
TET (GROUP).doc

dated 24 June 2022 straightaway it was resolved to cancel the

performance of these candidates and permanently debars them from

appearing in the examinations. He submitted that the impugned

orders are passed contrary to the directions of the State which is not

in conformity with the powers of the Executive committee to lay

down the procedure and specifying the penalty. In the absence of any

procedure or penalty specified therein, the impugned orders are bad

in law.

34. Learned senior counsel relied upon the decision of 5 Judge

Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Board of High

School and Intermediate Education U.P. Allahabad V. Ghanshyam Das

Gupta and others9 and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court

was concerned with similar provisions under the U.P. Act and was

dealing with the cancellation of results and debarment of the

candidates from appearing in the examination. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that such an order without following the principles of

natural justice is bad in law. He submitted, by relying on this

decision, that the impugned orders insofar as it cancels the

performance of the petitioners and also permanently debars, is

contrary to the said decision and, therefore, has to be quashed and

set aside.

9 1962 SCC OnLine SC 94

Page No.123
TET (GROUP).doc

35. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, relied upon the decision

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Cellular vs. Union of

India10 and more particularly, paragraph nos.68 to 78 and 83, thereof,

to explain the scope of judicial review in such matters. He submitted

relying on these paragraphs that this Court should exercise its

jurisdiction since the decision-making process is flawed on account of

the breach of principle of natural justice and authority exceeding its

powers arbitrarily and improperly.

36. Learned senior counsel made his submission on the

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nidhi Kaim

(supra) which is relied upon in the reply filed by the State and the

Council. He submitted that this decision does not have any

precedential value since on account of divergence of opinion

expressed by both the learned Judges, the matter was referred for

appropriate orders before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and till

today, there is no final order passed in this case.

Submissions of Mr. Bhavake appearing in Writ Petition No.5421 of
2023 and others :-

37. Mr. Bhavake, learned counsel adopted the arguments of

learned senior counsel Mr. Bandiwadekar. He further submitted that

in this petition and similar other petitions, the salaries and Shalarth

10 (1994) 6 SCC 651

Page No.124
TET (GROUP).doc

IDs have been frozen by the impugned orders dated 17 August 2022

and 3 August 2022. He submitted that as per the Government

Resolution dated 10 June 2022, there is a procedure prescribed for

freezing of Shalarth IDs which are found to have been obtained by

fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of facts. He submitted that

the procedure prescribed in this Government Resolution has not been

followed. He further relied upon the decision of Kolhapur Circuit

Bench in the case of Shaikh Akbar Nabilal vs. The State of

Maharashtra and others11 wherein in paragraph nos. 18 and 19, it is

observed that non-compliance of clause nos. 3.1 and 3.2 of the

Government Resolution dated 10 June 2022 would lead to quashing

of any action taken contrary thereto. He, therefore submitted that

the impugned order dated 17 August 2022 inasmuch as it freezes the

salary and Shalarth ID of the petitioners whose names are in the list

of 7,880 candidates whose performance is cancelled, is bad in law.

Submissions of Mr. Pawar appearing in Writ Petition No.4203/2023 :-

38. Mr. Pawar, learned counsel appearing in Writ Petition No.

4203 of 2023 has adopted the arguments made by Mr. Bandiwadekar,

learned senior counsel and further submitted that pending the

present petition, majority of teachers have cleared the TET/CTET

examination. He submitted that no benefit has been obtained on the
11 Writ Petition No. 9315 of 2024 dated 06.04.2026

Page No.125
TET (GROUP).doc

basis of the TET examination. He further submitted that teachers

have spent around 12-13 years and their performance may be

cancelled but they should not be prevented from appearing in future

examinations.

Summary of Written Submissions of Mr. Ram Karode in Writ Petition
No.7401 of 2023 and other petitions :-

39. Mr. Karode, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that, in some of his matters, salary and promotions have been

stopped on account of the impugned proceedings/orders. He further

submitted that, in the meanwhile, some of the candidates have

passed CTET examination and some of them are working with

minority institutions to whom TET examination was not compulsory.

He submitted that, on account of permanent debarment, the

petitioners are facing great hardship and are without any

employment. Some of the petitioners are working without salary.

40. He submitted that none of the petitioners are named in the

FIR and the charge-sheet. He further referred to the Government

Resolution dated 23 August 2013, in which it is stated that if some

irregularity is found, then the officials of the State Council will be

held responsible for criminal prosecution. Drawing support from the

said Government Resolution, he submitted that the petitioners cannot

Page No.126
TET (GROUP).doc

be penalised on account of tampering of the marks at the end of the

authorities conducting the examination. He submitted that if the

petitioners have acquired CTET qualification, which is equivalent to

TET, then their services should be protected. He submitted that the

punishment of permanently debarring the petitioners from appearing

in future TET examination is without authority of law and, further,

the principles of natural justice have been violated, which vitiates the

impugned orders. Alternatively, he submitted that the punishment of

permanent debarment is harsh and, at the most, the punishment of

debarment should be for 1 to 3 years. Mr. Karode relied upon

decision of the Principal Bench of this Court in the case of Sagar

Dattatray Chorghe vs. State of Maharashtra12.

Submissions of counsel Mr. Rahul Shinde appearing in Writ Petition
No.8460 of 2023 and other petitions :-

41. The submissions of Mr. Shinde are on the same lines as

those of Mr. Karode and other counsel. He, therefore, prayed for

allowing the petition and quashing the impugned order.

Submission of Mr. Pakale, senior counsel in Writ Petition No.106 of
2023 and other petitions :-

42. Mr. Pakale, learned senior counsel submitted that two

12 Writ Petition No. 7943 of 2024 dated 11 September 2025

Page No.127
TET (GROUP).doc

punishments have been imposed by the respondents on the

petitioners. Cancellation of the performance is the first punishment

and, permanent debarment is the second punishment. He submitted

that the respondents have adopted a very casual approach, without

application of mind and by flouting the principles of natural justice,

before imposing such punishment which deprives the petitioners of

their livelihoods, and the same is in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g)

and 21 of the Constitution of India.

43. Learned senior counsel submitted that, the impugned order

dated 3 August 2022, is bereft of any reason. He submitted that there

is no factual foundation in the impugned order with respect to at

least some of the candidates and, therefore, the impugned order is

more in the nature of a declaratory order and not teacher-specific. He

submitted that there is no foundation in the impugned order, except

some proceedings regarding the MHADA examination scam. The

present proceedings have been taken without mentioning in the

impugned order as to what was the material before the authority

before passing the impugned order. He submitted that, except the

MHADA scam, there is no foundation for imposing, or for passing the

impugned order in the case of the petitioners who appeared for the

TET examination. He submitted that a common order is passed by

Page No.128
TET (GROUP).doc

treating 7,880 candidates as one group. He submitted that the

impugned order dated 3 August 2022 only makes bald and vague

statements with regard to the allegations, without any factual

particulars with respect to, if not all, at least some of the candidates.

He submitted that, in the impugned order, it is stated that no notice is

required for cancellation and imposing punishment, which is contrary

to law.

44. He submitted that the whole exercise leading to the

impugned order is without authority of law. He submitted that

neither in the 1998 Act nor in the 2010 Regulations there is any

provision specifying the penalty and the procedure to be followed

before imposing the penalty, and, in the absence of any penalty being

prescribed, the impugned order is without jurisdiction and authority

of law. Learned senior counsel vehemently attacked replies filed by

the respondent-State and Council in lead Writ Petition No.9430 of

2022.

45. He further submitted that there is no delegation of power

to the Executive Committee to take the decision, nor any material is

placed on record to show that there has been any actual delegation

for imposing such penalty. He further submitted that the impugned

order is passed ex-parte and is, therefore, in violation of the

Page No.129
TET (GROUP).doc

principles of natural justice.

46. He submitted that the resolution on the basis of which the

impugned order is passed is also without any authority of law and the

same is a nullity. He submitted that there was no decision taken, but

only a recommendation made by the Committee. He referred to the

resolution dated 11 May 2022 and various other documents annexed

to the affidavit-in-reply of one Mr. Sharad Gosavi, Director of

Education filed in lead petition, to press his point that the

respondents themselves have admitted that there was no penalty

prescribed. He submitted that, based on this admission itself, penalty

imposed is required to be quashed and set aside. He submitted that

cancellation of the results itself is a penalty and, even for the

cancellation, there is no power given. He, therefore, submitted that

the impugned action is required to be quashed and set aside.

47. Learned senior counsel, referred to Clause 2 of Rule 1 of

2010 Regulation which is referred to in the reply of the respondents

in lead petition, and submitted that it applies only to employees of

the State and Regional Councils and not to petitioner candidates.

There is no provision to take action against the candidates since these

regulations do not cover them. He, therefore, submitted that the

impugned order is without authority of law.

Page No.130
TET (GROUP).doc

48. Learned senior counsel further submitted that it is settled

position that an order has to stand on its own legs and it should

speak for itself. In the impugned order, there are no reasons given,

there is no factual foundation nor any affidavits are filed supplying

the documents on the basis of which the impugned order is passed.

He, therefore, submits that such a non-reasoned and non-speaking

order has to fall down. He further submitted that since nothing has

been produced, it should be inferred that there is no such material on

the basis of which the impugned order is passed. He submitted that

the report referred to in the resolution is also not brought on record

and therefore, there are strong reasons to believe that order is not

based on any report, but at the behest of some unknown authorities

or higher authorities.

49. He submitted that in the affidavit of Mr. Gosavi,

respondents have stated that they have relied on the

provisions/regulation of Maharashtra Public Services Commission

(MPSC) for imposing the penalty. He submitted that this itself shows

that there are no regulations under the Maharashtra State Council of

Examination Act, nor there are provisions in 2010 Regulation. He,

therefore, submitted that the impugned order is required to be set

aside.

Page No.131
TET (GROUP).doc

50. Learned senior counsel further referred to communication

between the State to the Commissioner, Maharashtra State

Examination Council, dated 10th June 2022, whereby the State

directed the action to be taken against the candidates including

permanent debarring them from appearing for examinations. He

therefore submitted that the action is taken at the behest of the State.

Learned senior counsel has also filed written submissions, the gist of

which is already recorded by us above.

51. Learned senior counsel relied upon following decisions in

support of his above submissions and prayed for allowing the petition

in terms of prayer clauses mentioned therein.

a) State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors.13
b) State of Gujrat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Ors.14
c) Nidhi Kaim (supra)
d) Delhi Development Authority vs. Bhim Sain Goel and Ors.15
e) D K Yadav vs. JM Industries Limited16
f) Kuldeep Kumar Pathak vs. State of UP and Ors.17
g) Chishti Farhanuddin Qaiseruddin Chishti vs. State of Maharashtra &
Ors.18
h) Narayan Dodhu Chaudhary vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.19

13 2023 (6) SCC 1
14 2005 (8) SCC 534
15 (2022) 17 SCC 580
16 1993 AIR (SCW) 1995
17 2016 (3) SCC 521
18 2016 (5) MhLJ 280
19 2005 (3) MhLJ 693

Page No.132
TET (GROUP).doc

i) Nepal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh20
j) Krishna Mohan Medical College and Hospital & Anr vs. Union of
India and Anrs.21
k) Radhey Shaym Gupta vs. UP State Agro Industries Corp. Ltd.22
l) Board of High School and Intermediate Education, UP vs.
Bagleshwar Prasad23
m) Vijay Singh (Supra)
n) Vanshika Yadav vs. Union of India & Ors.24
o) Devidas Bhanudas Toradmal vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.25
p) Rajkumar Dhakad vs. State of MP26

Submission of Mr. Syed, appearing in Writ Petition No.7316 of 2024:-

52. Mr. Syed, learned counsel submitted that because of the

impugned order the petitioners were debarred from appearing for

TAIT, CTET, etc. examinations. However, by intervention of this Court,

the petitioners participated in these examinations and ultimately,

they were given appointment orders since they had qualified

CTET/TAIT examinations. He submitted that the petitioners have not

claimed any benefit on the basis of the TET results. He further

submitted that the punishment of permanently debarring the

petitioners is coming in their way and may affect future prospects

20 1985 AIR (SC) 84
21 2017 (15) SCC 719
22 1999 (1) CurlR 489
23 1966 AIR (SC) 875
24 2024 INSC 568
25 2025(1) MhLJ 476
26 High Court of Madhya Pradesh M.CR.C. No. 16327 of 2022

Page No.133
TET (GROUP).doc

and the present job. He, therefore, submitted that the services of the

petitioners should be protected since they have not claimed any

benefit on the basis of the TET examination. He relied upon decision

of this Court in the case of Hina Kausar vs. State of Maharashtra27 and

Pandharinath Kanojia vs. State of Maharashtra28.

Submissions of Mr. Ghatol Patil, appearing in Writ Petition No.9676
of 2024 :-

53. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner in Writ Petition No.9676 of 2024, has annexed answer

sheet attempted by the petitioner and the model answers provided by

the respondent. He submitted that on a comparison of both, marks

obtained by her, is identical to the marks based on the model answers

given by the respondents. He, therefore, submitted that the case of

the petitioner does not fall in malpractices of tampering with the

marks and therefore, the petitioner’s name has been wrongly

included in the annexure to the impugned order. He submitted that

various applications were made for getting information on the basis

of which petitioner's name has been shown in the annexure to the

impugned order but the authorities have not given any information

on the ground that the FIR is filed on the subject matter. He,

therefore, submitted that this petitioner’s case is different and the
27 WP/8534/2023 dated 14 September 2023
28 WP/1269/2025 dated 25 March 2025

Page No.134
TET (GROUP).doc

petition deserves to be allowed on this ground itself.

54. All other counsel appearing for the petitioners have

adopted the submissions made by all the learned senior counsel and

other counsel and prayed for allowing the petitions.

Submissions of Mr. Hon, senior counsel for respondent-State :-

55. Mr. Hon, learned senior counsel relied upon paragraphs 27

and 28 of the order dated 11 June 2021 passed in Writ Petition

No.4940 of 2020, wherein the condition of compulsory TET was

challenged. He submitted that the rationale for making TET a

compulsory qualification for teaching young children was to bring

national standards and benchmarks of teacher quality into the

recruitment process, since these teachers would be moulding and

shaping the minds of young children. He submitted that this Court, in

paragraph 28, has observed that heavy responsibility would lie upon

the teachers to impart quality education to these young minds. It is in

this background that the action impugned in the present group of

petitions has to be tested by the Court. He further relied upon order

passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 8 September 2026 in Writ

Petition (Civil) No.1102 of 2026, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court

has observed that no teacher shall be appointed in schools or colleges

unless they possess the requisite prescribed qualification.

Page No.135
TET (GROUP).doc

56. Learned senior counsel, on a query by the Court, stated that

generally, within two months of the examination, the final results are

declared. However, in the instant case, on account of COVID-19, the

results were declared in August 2020 and since model answers and

copies of answer sheet were with candidates, they knew what marks

they were going to get and taking advantage of lockdown,

malpractice came to be practised in collusion with officers of the

Council by altering only the marks.

57. Learned senior counsel brought to our attention the answer

sheets of the candidates who are petitioners in lead petition. He

submitted that as soon as the examination is over, a carbon copy of

the answer sheet is given to the candidates, and the original is taken

by the supervisor. The original is thereafter scanned and retained and

available even today. He submitted that after few days of the

examination, the candidates are also given model answer sheets so

that they can compare the answers with those attempted by them. He

submitted that based on the comparison between the answer sheets

attempted by the petitioners and the model answers, it was clear that

the actual marks obtained by the candidates were far less than what

was printed on the final mark-sheets. He submitted that none of the

petitioners have denied this, in spite of the respondents having made

Page No.136
TET (GROUP).doc

a specific plea in this regard in their reply and attached answer sheets

there with. He submitted that this would amount to admission of the

candidates having obtained more marks than what they actually

secured. He further called upon all the petitioners to come forward

and deny their answer sheets and model answers which would prove

whether respondents have given marks wrongly.

58. With regard to Writ Petition No.9676 of 2024, in the case of

Heena Kausar (supra), the marks as per the answer sheet of the

candidate was 82, whereas in the final mark sheet, it was printed as

84. Therefore, the name of this petitioner appeared in 7880

candidates whose marks were tampered with. He submitted that the

issue is not whether the difference was only two marks, but whether

the actual marks were different from those appearing in the final

marks sheet. He submitted that in competitive exams even a

difference of one mark can make huge difference.

59. Mr. Hon, learned senior counsel for the respondents,

submitted that after the issue of tampering was brought to the notice

of the respondents by the police authorities, and the police

authorities specifically stated that the marks of 7,880 candidates have

been tampered with, respondent-Council physically verified the

answer sheets of these 7,880 candidates for ascertaining the actual

Page No.137
TET (GROUP).doc

marks and compared the same with the marks printed on the mark

sheets. It is only thereafter that the results of 7,880 candidates were

cancelled.

60. Learned senior counsel further disputed the submissions

made by the petitioners that none of the petitioners have been

questioned by the police authorities. He submitted that the police

authorities have recorded the statements of various candidates and

the admissions made therein. He further submitted that this

malpractice was carried out by the officials of the respondent

Council, namely, Mr. Tukaram Namdeo Supe, who was holding dual

charge as a Commissioner of Maharashtra State Examination Council

as well as also President of Maharashtra State Examination Council

during the period when the fraud was committed. He submitted that

necessary criminal and disciplinary action have been initiated against

Mr. Supe by the respondents.

61. Learned senior counsel relied upon the guidelines for

conducting TET, wherein, in paragraph 12, it is specifically stated that

a serious view will be taken of any malpractice or impersonation by

or against a candidate.

62. Learned senior counsel submitted that the decision for

cancellation of results of 7,880 candidates was taken in the larger

Page No.138
TET (GROUP).doc

public and society interest since the State did not want young minds

to be trained by such teachers. He submitted that keeping in mind the

fundamental Right to Education, the decision in larger public interest

was taken. He submitted that between private interest and larger

public and society interest, it is the later which should prevail over

the former.

63. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, made submissions on

the reliefs sought in the petition. He submitted that the petitioners

have sought prayer to quash the communication dated 10 June 2022.

He submitted that as per this communication, the State had directed

the Council to conduct an enquiry with regard to the fraud and

inform the concerned schools about the candidates involved and,

after hearing them, to take appropriate action. In the meanwhile,

their salary and Shalarth - ID were frozen. He submitted that before

any inquiry could be initiated against these teachers, they

approached this Court and obtained interim orders, which prevented

the management and the respondents from initiating an inquiry

against the teachers. He submitted that the freezing of salary and

Shalarth - ID was only subject to the completion of the inquiry. He

submitted that under the interim orders, these teachers have been

paid their salaries. He submitted that the petitioners have delayed the

Page No.139
TET (GROUP).doc

conduct of the inquiry by the concerned authorities by obtaining

interim orders of this Court. He submitted that no mandamus could

be issued for quashing of the communication dated 10 June 2022. He

further submitted that the communication dated 10 June 2022

specifically stated that a hearing would be given before a final

decision was taken. He therefore submitted that the challenge to the

said communication is also premature.

64. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, brought to our attention

the communication dated 18 August 2022 addressed by the Council

to the Director of Education for freezing of salary and Shalarth - ID.

He submitted that the salary and Shalarth - ID of only 576 candidates

out of 7,880 have been frozen.

65. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the results of

7,880 candidates have been cancelled, but not all of them have

approached the Court. The number of candidates who have

approached the Court is much less. He submitted that the other

candidates have accepted the cancellation, which fortifies the action

of the respondents.

66. Learned senior counsel thereafter relied upon Section 26 of

the 1998 Act, which provides for powers of the Government to issue

directions. He submitted that the authorities under the Act work

Page No.140
TET (GROUP).doc

under the supervision of the State Government. He, therefore,

submitted that the directions issued by the State Government by

various communication to the Council were under Section 26 of the

said Act. Alternatively, he submitted that the directions are also in

pursuance of Article 162 of the Constitution of India.

67. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, drawing support from

the Government Resolution dated 12 October 1993, submitted that

the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its judgment in the case of District

Collector vs. N. Tripura Sundaridevi29, has observed that a person

who obtains an appointment without possessing the qualification for

the post would amount to playing fraud, and no Court should be a

party to the perpetuation of such fraudulent practice. He further

stated that in the said Government Resolution, it is specifically

mentioned that, if the charges are proved in this regard, then the

government servant should be removed or dismissed from service. He

defended the impugned action by drawing support from this

Government Resolution.

68. Learned senior counsel referred to GR dated 31 st October

1996 with regards to caste certificate obtained by playing fraud. This

GR states that if any person employed with the State on the basis of a

caste certificate which is obtained by fraud, then appropriate action
29 (1990) 4 SLR 237

Page No.141
TET (GROUP).doc

will be taken including termination of his employment and

appropriate disciplinary action against him will also be taken. He,

relying upon this GR, submitted that the State Government does have

the power of terminating a government servant who has obtained the

service on the basis of a fraudulent document.

69. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, relied upon Sections 14,

18(1) and 18(2), 23(1)(a),(f), (p), (s) and (t) and the preamble of

the 1998 Act and submitted that the State and the Council have

enough power for cancellation of the performance of the candidates

and imposing the punishment. He also relied upon Section 35 of the

said Act which provides that the Council shall furnish to the

Government such reports, etc. as may be required by the Government

and such further information relating to any matter connected with

its work as the Government may call for and the Government after

considering such report, etc. may give appropriate direction

consistent with the Act as may be necessary and the Council shall

comply with such directions. He, therefore, submitted that the

respondent-State have acted within the powers conferred by the 1998

Act for issuing the impugned orders/communications.

70. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, submitted that in the

order dated 3 August 2022, there is a reference to 11 documents

Page No.142
TET (GROUP).doc

starting from 2019 up to the passing of the impugned order in 2022

which clearly demonstrates that the respondents have not acted in

haste but after completely verifying the information received from

the police authorities independently and after due consideration and

deliberation by the expert committee and the officials of the Council

and the State Government. He submitted that the reference to these

documents itself and on a reading of the impugned order it cannot be

said that the impugned order is without any reason.

71. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, submitted that a 6-

member Committee was formed and was entrusted to examine this

issue and the said Committee consisted of officials of high ranking

viz., Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Superintendent

etc., drawn from Council and education department. These are

competent officers and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was no

application of mind before taking the impugned action.

72. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, referred to letter dated

14 February 2022, annexed to the reply of respondents, addressed to

the Council by the Committee, wherein detailed report with respect

to verification of 7,880 answer sheet was made.

73. Learned senior counsel relied upon following decisions of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of his various submissions

Page No.143
TET (GROUP).doc

made herein above :-

FRAUD, ILLEGAL APPOINTMENTS

(i) District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare
Residential School Society, Vizianagaram & Anr. vs. M.
Tripura Sundari Devi 30
(ii) Central Bank of India vs. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahri &
Ors.31
(iii) Smriti Madan Kansagra vs. Perry Kansagra32

NATURAL JUSTICE FUTILE EXERCISE

(i) Dharampal Satyapal Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Central Excise, Gauhati & Ors.33
(ii) State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors.34
(iii) Union of India & Ors. vs. M. Bhaskaran35

ARTICLE 162

Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants And Residents
& Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.36

EXAMINATION MALPRACTICE/SCAM

(i) Nidhi Kaim (supra)
(ii) State of West Bengal vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee)
& Ors.37

PENDENCY OF ISSUE BEFORE LARGER BENCH

(i) Ashok Sadarangani & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.38
30 (1990) 3 SCC 655
31 (2008) 13 SCC 170
32 (2023) 20 SCC 517
33 (2015) 8 SCC 519
34 (2021) 19 SCC 706
35 1995 Supp (4) SCC 100
36 (2019) 8 SCC 607
37 (2025) 11 SCC 126
38 (2012) 11 SCC 321

Page No.144
TET (GROUP).doc

SUPERINTENDENCE OF POWERS

(i) Central Information Commission vs. DDA & Anr.39

SOURCE OF POWER NEED NOT BE MENTIONED

(i) Mahatama Gandhi Mission & Anr. vs. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena
& Ors.40
NO APPOINTMENTS WITHOUT TET

(i) Rajesh Chauhan & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.41

74. Learned senior counsel concluded by praying for dismissal

of these writ petitions and for taking strict and serious view of the

matter keeping in mind that these petitioners were to teach young

children.

Submissions of Mr. Nikam appearing for Council :-

75. Mr. Nikam, learned counsel appearing for Council adopted

submissions of Mr. Hon, senior counsel for State and submitted that

the officers involved in the scam comprised of officers of the Council,

Chairman, Directors and Vice President of GA Software Company,

Deputy Secretary of School Education Department and Technical

Advisor working in the office of Commissioner of Education. He

submitted that it was in connivance with these officers and the

candidates that the malpractice has been committed in the year 2018

39 (2024) 8 SCC 812
40 (2017) 4 SCC 449
41 Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s).1102/2026

Page No.145
TET (GROUP).doc

and 2019 since 2019 was the last attempt to clear the TET exam,

failing which the services of in-service teachers were to be

terminated. Therefore, according to him, the candidates sought to

achieve the success by unfair means.

76. Mr. Nikam further submitted that statements of the some of

the candidates have been recorded by the police authorities prior to

the impugned order dated 3 August 2022. Some of these candidates

whose statements were recorded have also filed petitions challenging

the impugned action but they have not disclosed in the petition that

their statements were recorded. He submitted that in these

statements, these candidates have admitted based on the model

answers and answer-sheet attempted by them that the marks are

different than the marks shown on the mark-sheet. Some of the

candidates have also admitted that they have paid cash for altering

the marks. It is his submission that the petitioners in Writ Petition

Nos.10879 of 2022, 9512 of 2022 and 9760 of 2023 have not

disclosed in the petitions that their statements have been recorded,

wherein they have admitted that there has been a change in their

marks but they have denied that they have made any payment for

doing so. It is his submission that these petitioners having not

disclosed in the petitions that their statements have been recorded by

Page No.146
TET (GROUP).doc

the police and thereby have played fraud on this Court by

suppressing material information and, therefore, these petitions

should be dismissed at the outset.

77. Mr. Nikam further submitted that from the above fact,

submission made by the petitioners that statements of none of the

candidates have been recorded is incorrect. He submitted that it was

only after the statements of some candidates were recorded and

detailed process was followed that the impugned order came to be

passed.

78. Mr. Nikam referring to the annexures filed with affidavit of

Ms. Shailaja submitted that right from 16 December 2021, the day

when the cyber police informed the Education Commissioner, the

Council took various steps namely filing of FIR, forming Committee,

physical verification of the marks and the OMR-sheet, submitting

report by the Committee, deliberations by the Committee, various

communications between the State and the Council that ultimately

the impugned order was passed.

79. He submitted that the impugned order dated 3 August 2022

contains various documents which clearly demonstrates that the

decision was not taken in haste and without application of mind but

by following detailed verification and investigation before passing

Page No.147
TET (GROUP).doc

the impugned order.

80. He submitted that none of the petitioners have come

forward to claim that the marks as per the model answers and the

answer-sheets attempted are same as those printed on the original

mark-sheet, inspite of the answer-sheets and model answers having

annexed with the reply to the Writ Petition No.9430 of 2022.

81. Mr. Nikam further submitted that 2018 TET exam results

were cancelled by order dated 14 October 2022 on same lines as that

of TET 2019 since malpractices were found even in that exam on the

same lines. The said order of 14 October 2022 is challenged in Writ

Petition No.14072 of 2023.

82. Mr. Nikam relied upon Regulation 8(2)(t) of Chapter V Part

II of 2010 Regulations and after pointing out various steps taken from

16 December 2021 till the passing of the order, sought to canvas the

conferment of powers for passing the impugned orders.

83. At this stage, the Court raised a query to Advocate Mr.

Panpatte as to why his client has not disclosed in the petition that his

statement has been recorded by the police authorities with regard to

the malpractice. Mr. Panpatte, learned advocate submitted that such

statement does not have any evidentiary value till it is proved and

therefore, the need to disclose was not felt. He defended the non-

Page No.148
TET (GROUP).doc

disclosure of such a statement in the petition. The Court further gave

an opportunity to the client of Mr. Panpatte and other petitioners for

filing an affidavit that such a statement was never recorded.

However, no such affidavit has been filed.

84. Mr. Nikam relied upon following decisions in support of his

above submissions and prayed for dismissal of the petitions with

costs.

(i) Chairman, J & K State Board of Education vs. Feyaz Ahmed
Malik & Ors.42
(ii) The Bihar School Examination Board vs. Subhas Chandra
Sinha & Ors.43
(iii) Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai & Ors.44
(iv) Dilip Jagannath Sarode & Ors. vs. Maharashtra Public
Service Commission & Ors.45
(v) State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Prabhu46
(vi) In Re: Dr. Ram Ashray Yaday, Chairman Bihar Public
Service Commission47
(vii) Om Kumar vs. Union of India48

(viii)Bank of India & Anr. vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar & Ors.49

(ix) M. Tripura Sundari Devi (supra)

(x) Chairman Board of Mining Examination and Chief

42 (2000) 3 SCC 59
43 (1970) 1 SCC 648
44 (2017) 13 SCC 621
45 2008 LJSoft (Bom) 856
46 (1994) 2 SCC 481
47 2000 DGLS (SC) 616
48 2000 DGLS (SC) 1643
49 (2005) 7 SCC 690

Page No.149
TET (GROUP).doc

Inspector of Mines vs. Ramjee50

(xi) Biswa Ranjan Sahoo & Ors. vs. Sushanta Kumar Dinda &
Ors.51

Rejoinder of Mr. Sapkal, Senior Counsel :-

85. Mr. Sapkal, learned senior counsel referring to the decision

in the case of Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust vs. State of

Maharashtra & Ors.52 submitted that by virtue of punishment, though

Hon’ble Supreme Court has extended the time to clear TET exam

upto the year 2028, petitioners would not be entitled to such an

extension. He also submits that such a punishment would be contrary

to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further submitted

that appointment of most of the petitioners was not illegal since at

the time of the appointment, there was no condition of clearing TET

exam. Such a condition came after their appointment was approved

by the appropriate authorities under the MEPS Act. He further

submitted that the GRs dated 12 October 1993 and 31 October 1996

relied upon by respondent-State are not applicable since the

petitioners are not in government service but in private service and

their service conditions are regulated by the MEPS Act and Rules.

50 1977 DGLS (SC) 72
51 (1996) 5 SCC 365
52 (2026) 7 SCC 690

Page No.150
TET (GROUP).doc

86. Learned senior counsel further referred to Sections 2(d),

2(g) and 2(l) of the 1998 Act and submitted that by virtue of GRs or

Regulations there cannot be cancellation of results and imposition of

punishment, since the scheme of the Act provides for the regulations

in this regard which are not in existence. He further submitted that

Section 14 of the 1998 Act is not applicable since the Committee

itself is not in existence. Learned senior counsel further pointed out

that provisions of Section 18 to form the Committees is mandatory

and in the absence of such Committees being formed, the impugned

orders are without jurisdiction. He further submitted that Section

18(2) cannot be pressed into service by the respondent-State since

the said provision is for constituting Committee for performance of its

functions and not for cancellation of results and imposition of

punishment.

87. He further referred to various provisions of Section 23 and

submitted that the State Council has to advise the Government on

policies relating to examination and not to receive the instructions

from the State Government. He further submits that there is no

power under Section 23 to cancel the results. He then submitted that

Section 35 which empowers the State to give direction to the Council

for necessary action is also not applicable in the instant case because

Page No.151
TET (GROUP).doc

such direction should be consistent with the Act and in the instant

case, the directions are not consistent with the Act. He further

submitted that provisions of Sections 37 and 38 are also not

applicable in the absence of any Committee which, under 2010

Regulations is empowered to conduct the enquiry and recommend

penalty in case of malpractice. He submitted that since the decision

making process is not in accordance with the 1998 Act and 2010

Regulation, the impugned orders have to be quashed.

88. Learned senior counsel referred to Regulations 8, 11 and 13

of 2010 Regulations and submitted that it is the Examination

Committee of the Regional Council which is supposed to enquire into

the complaints regarding the alleged leakage and malpractice and

such a Committee should report to the Standing Committee of

Regional Council at its next meeting. He submitted that this

procedure has not been followed before passing the impugned order.

He further submitted that under Regulation 11(2), duty of the

Examination Committee is to recommend Executive Committee on

the procedure to be followed and punishment to be imposed by the

Regional Council which again has not been complied with. He,

therefore, submitted that since 2010 Regulation requirements are not

complied with, the decision-making process is flawed and, therefore,

Page No.152
TET (GROUP).doc

the impugned orders are without jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law.

89. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, sought to distinguish the

decision relied upon by the State on the ground that those decisions

dealt with obtaining appointment by illegal means whereas in the

instant case there is no illegality pertaining to appointment. The

appointments have been approved under the MEPS Act and Rules.

The requirement of clearing TET exam came after the date of

appointment and, therefore, decisions would not be applicable. He

further submitted that reliance placed by the respondent-State on the

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharampal

Satyapal Limited (supra) to dispense with natural justice principles

also would not be applicable in the instant case, since that would

amount to the authorities having pre-determined the action. He

submitted that severe prejudice is caused to the petitioners because

of impugned order.

90. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, sought to distinguish the

decision in the case of Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) (supra),

on the grounds of fairness, equity, etc., by submitting that

investigation has not been conducted in the instant case and there is

no proof to substantiate the allegations and, in any case, allegations

cannot substitute the proof.

Page No.153
TET (GROUP).doc

91. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Sapkal, therefore, prayed for

allowing the petitions in toto.

Rejoinder of Mr. Bandiwadekar, Senior Counsel :-

92. Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned senior counsel submitted that

the statement of the petitioners in petitions in which he is appearing

were not recorded by the police authorities. He further submitted

that the submission of the respondent-State that the petition is

premature is also not correct since by 3 August 2022, the petitioners

were permanently debarred from appearing for TET exam and their

performance was cancelled which resulted into their job being

terminated but were saved because of interim orders of this Court.

He submitted that because of 3 August 2022, submission made by

respondent-State on the basis of communication dated 10 June 2022

that the petition is premature is required to be rejected.

93. Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned senior counsel further

submitted that provisions of Section 26 of the 1998 Act cannot be

pressed into service for justifying the punishment since the said

section provides for framing of rules which was also the instructions

given by the State Government to the Council before imposing the

penalty. Admittedly, the State and the Council have not produced any

procedure or regulation or rules regarding imposition of penalty.

Page No.154
TET (GROUP).doc

94. Lastly, he submitted that Section 23(1)(t) does not

empower the authorities to terminate the employment and Shalarth

IDs since the said provision is only for the purposes of 1998 Act.

Rejoinder of Mr. Pakale, Senior Counsel :-

95. Mr. Pakale, learned senior counsel submitted that the State

has not made any submissions on blacklisting of the candidates

without giving any hearing. He further submitted that the State has

not filed any reply in his petition and, therefore, he is handicapped in

making the submissions in regard to the documents which are filed

with the reply in lead petition. Learned senior counsel fairly stated

that it is not his case that the Council does not have power to cancel

the performance but it is his case that the Council does not have the

power to blacklist the petitioners and that too, without complying

with the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that since

the appointments were prior to introduction of TET, cancellation of

performance would not result into termination of the service of the

petitioners appointed prior. He further submitted that in the absence

of compliance with Article 166 of the Constitution of India, impugned

actions cannot be justified by taking shelter under Article 162 of the

Constitution of India. He, therefore, concluded by submitting that

the petitions be allowed by quashing the impugned orders.

Page No.155
TET (GROUP).doc

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS :-

96. Before we proceed to address the issue, it is necessary to

analyse certain provisions of the 1998 Act which are relevant for the

purpose of the present decision.

97. Section 2(b) defines “Commissioner” to mean the

Commissioner of the Maharashtra State Council of Examinations

appointed under Section 20. Section 20 deals with the appointment,

powers and duties of the Commissioner of the Council. It provides

that the State Council shall have a Commissioner appointed by the

Government from amongst persons holding the post of Joint Director

of Education from the Maharashtra Education Service. The

Commissioner shall be wholly responsible for the design,

organization and conduct of examinations to be conducted by the

State Council. The Commissioner shall be the ex officio Chairperson

of the Examination Committee of the State Council. The

Commissioner shall be the Executive Officer of the State Council.

98. Section 2(c) defines “Council” to mean the State Council of

Examinations or a Regional Council established under Section 3.

Section 2(n) defines “State Council” to mean the Maharashtra State

Council of Examinations established under sub-section (1) of Section

3 of the Act. Section 3(1) provides that the Government shall, by

Page No.156
TET (GROUP).doc

notification in the Official Gazette, establish, for the purposes of this

Act for the whole State, a Council to be called the Maharashtra State

Council of Examinations. Section 4 provides that the State Council

will be a statutory autonomous body. Section 5(2) provides that the

Commissioner shall be the ex officio Member-Secretary of the State

Council, who shall be entitled to take part in all the deliberations and

proceedings of the meetings of the State Council, but shall have no

right to vote.

99. Section 14 provides that no act or proceeding of the State

Council or any Regional Council or any committee of a Council shall

be invalid merely by reason of any vacancy in, or any defect in the

constitution of such Council or Committee.

100. Section 18 provides that the State Council shall constitute

following committees, namely, Academic Committee, Executive

Committee, Finance Committee and Examination Committee and

such other Committees for the efficient performance of its functions.

101. Section 23(1)(f) provides that the State Council shall

conduct examinations and award certificates to the candidates

passing the various examinations. Section 23(1)(p) provides that the

State Council shall appoint such committees as it may think necessary

for the efficient discharge of its functions under this Act. Section

Page No.157
TET (GROUP).doc

23(2) provides that it shall be lawful for the Council to conduct the

examinations on the request of any authority, on contract basis and

on the terms and conditions approved by the Council. Section 23(1)

(t) provides for doing all acts and things necessary to carry out the

purposes of the Act.

102. Section 26 provides for the powers of the Government to

issue directions. Sub-section (1) provides that the Government shall

have the power to issue to the State Council or a Regional Council

such directions as it may consider necessary in regard to all or any of

the matters specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 23

and the Council concerned shall comply with such directions. Sub-

section (2) provides that the Government shall also have right to

address to the State Council or a Regional Council with reference to

anything it has conducted or done or is conducting or doing, or

intends to conduct or do, and to communicate to the Council

concerned its views in the matter. Sub-section (3) provides that the

Council shall report to the Government such action taken upon

receipt of the communication from the State Government and shall

furnish an explanation if it fails to take appropriate action. Sub-

section (4) provides that if the Council fails within a reasonable time

to act, then the Government may, after considering the representation

Page No.158
TET (GROUP).doc

or explanation furnished, issue directions which should be complied

with by the Council. Sub-section (5) deals with an emergency

situation which, in the opinion of the Government requires that

immediate action to be taken and the Government may take such

action, consistent with the Act, as it deems necessary, without

previous consultation with the Council concerned, and shall forthwith

inform it of the action taken.

103. Section 37(2) provides for powers of the State Council to

make regulations. It provides that the State Council may provide for

the constitution of various committees, the marks required for

passing in any subject, arrangements for conduct of examinations and

publication of results, the awarding certificates, etc.

104. It is also relevant to analyse the important provisions of the

2010 Regulations which are pressed into service by the parties. Part I

of the 2010 Regulations deals with conditions of service of

employees. We are not concerned with Part I and, therefore, the same

is not analysed herein.

105. Part II of the 2010 Regulations consists of various Chapters

which are relevant for the purposes of deciding the issue raised

herein.

Page No.159
TET (GROUP).doc

106. Chapter I of Part II deals with definitions. Regulation 1(2)

defines “Commissioner” to mean the Commissioner of the

Maharashtra State Council of Examinations. Regulation 1(8) defines

“examination” to mean all examinations conducted by the Council at

the end of such prescribed time schedule as may be determined in the

syllabi and all other examinations conducted by the Council on

contract basis on the terms and conditions approved by the Council.

Regulation 1(9) defines “examination on contract basis” to mean all

the scholastic, professional, entrance tests and other examinations

conducted by the Council on the request of any authority on the

terms and conditions approved by the Council, as specified under

Section 23(2) of the Act. Regulation 1(15) defines “specified

examination” to mean all the scholastic, professional and certain

other examinations entrusted by the Government to the Council from

time to time.

107. Chapter III of Part II deals with the powers and duties of

the Chairperson and the Commissioner of the State Council.

Regulation 4(1) provides for the duties of the Commissioner.

Regulation 4(1)(b) provides that the Commissioner shall act as a

Member-Secretary of all committees of the State Council except the

Examination Committee and it is his duty to attend and participate in

Page No.160
TET (GROUP).doc

the discussions at the meeting of such committees and place before it

any information as may be called for at such meeting. Regulation

4(1)(g) requires the Commissioner to take action on the minutes and

reports of the State Council and its committees. Regulation 4(1)(n)

provides that in case of an examination conducted by the State

Council on contract basis, the Commissioner shall be responsible to

organize and conduct the examination as per the terms and

conditions approved by the Council. Chapter V of Part II deals with

committees of the State Council. Regulation 7(5)(a) provides that the

Commissioner shall be the Secretary of all the committees of the

State Council except the Examination Committee. Regulation 8(1) of

Chapter V of Part II provides that the Executive Committee shall

function subject to the control of the State Council. Regulation 8(2)

(t) provides that the Executive Committee shall lay down the

procedure and specify the penalties to be followed by the State

Council and the Regional Councils in dealing with cases of unfair

means adopted by persons in the process of examination.

108. Regulation 11(2) provides for duties and functions of the

Examination Committee. Regulation 11(2)(i) provides that the

Examination Committee shall recommend to the Executive

Committee schedule of punishment to be followed by the Regional

Page No.161
TET (GROUP).doc

Council in dealing with malpractices of candidates, paper-setters, etc.

109. At the outset, the petitioners have adopted common

approach for attacking the impugned orders by treating cancellation

of results and permanent debarring from appearing in future TET

exam as one and the same. However, we do not agree with this

approach. According to us, both the issues needs to be addressed

separately since parameters required to adjudicate both the issues

would be different.

110. The following two broad issues arise for consideration of

this Court :-

Whether cancellation of results by respondent-Council
and whether the penalty/punishment imposed without
following principles of natural justice is justified.

Issue No. 1 :

Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the present
case, respondents – State and Maharashtra State Council of
Examination / Education were justified in cancelling the
performance of the petitioners who appeared in TET –
2018 and TET – 2019 exams without following the
principles of natural justice?

111. Respondent-State at the outset of the hearing called upon

the petitioners to approach the respondent to verify their answer-

Page No.162
TET (GROUP).doc

sheets with model answers so that the root cause of the issue raised

in these petitions can be thrashed out which will prove whether

petitioners are correct in stating that marks shown on mark-sheet are

correct or whether respondents are correct in contending tampering

of marks. Despite this, none of the petitioners availed the offer nor

any of the petitioners in their submissions has refuted this, except in

case of one of petitioner whose marks were shown as 84 when he

secured 82. Even this petitioner later did not contest correct marks as

82. In our view, this clearly amounts to admission of tampering of

marks by the petitioners. On this ground itself, the cancellation of

results has to be confirmed and challenge is required to be rejected

without going into other submissions. In our view, equitable

extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 cannot be

invoked for seeking remedy on this issue.

112. In Writ Petition No.9430 of 2022 there are total 15

petitioners. The respondents in the reply have annexed the answer

sheets attempted by these petitioners which are signed by the

candidates and based on these answer sheets, correct marks obtained

are mentioned in the reply. These marks are compared with the

marks shown on the mark-sheet which proves tampering of the

marks. These petitioners have not expressly denied that these answer

Page No.163
TET (GROUP).doc

sheets do not belong to them nor they have come out with the case

that when compared with model answers, the answers given by them

would reflect the marks originally allotted and appearing in the

mark-sheet. Similar answer sheets attempted by other petitioners

have been filed by the respondents in other matters which has not

been rebutted by these petitioners. In our view, this is clear case of

admission of tampering of marks in the mark-sheet as compared to

the actual marks which the petitioners were entitled to. There are

more than 500 petitions before this Court and none of the petitioners

has come out with a positive case based on their answer sheet and

the model answers to prove that the original marks shown in the

mark-sheet is correct. In our view, the petitioners who have invoked

equitable jurisdiction of this Court cannot seek any relief on basis of

these facts by raising hyper-technical and superfluous objections.

113. We are quite astonished that some of the candidates whose

statements were recorded by the police authorities much prior to the

impugned order dated 3 August 2022 have filed petitions in this

Court namely, Writ Petition Nos.10879 of 2022, 9512 of 2022 and

9760 of 2023 without disclosing in their petitions that such

statements have been recorded. In our view, this is a clear case of

suppression of important material fact by the petitioners and moreso

Page No.164
TET (GROUP).doc

by the petitioners who are either teachers or who would be entering

the teaching profession. These petitioners have not only engaged in

malpractices but have also played a fraud on this Court by not

disclosing this important material. Therefore, these petitions are

dismissed on account of suppression of material facts. In this group of

petitions, in most of the petitions there are more than one petitioner

and, therefore, the respondent-Council is not able to state exactly the

writ petitions number filed by the candidates whose statements have

been recorded, other than those stated above. Therefore, we deem fit

that the Council would verify this at its end, the candidates whose

statements have been recorded prior to 3rd August 2022 and who

have filed the petitions but have not disclosed this important

material. Such candidates should be identified by the contesting

respondents i.e. State and the Council and insofar as these candidates

are concerned this Court is not inclined to give any relief including

the relief of quashing of permanent debarment from appearing in

TET exam since these candidates have not approached this Court

with clean hands and this Court would not permit such persons to

pollute the minds of the young children.

114. The impugned order dated 3 August, 2022, is passed by the

Commissioner of the Council. Section 2(b) of 1998 Act defines

Page No.165
TET (GROUP).doc

Commissioner to mean Commissioner of the State Council appointed

under Section 20. Section 20(2) provides that the Commissioner shall

be wholly responsible for conduct of the examinations to be

conducted by the State Council. The Commissioner under Section

20(5) is the Executive Officer of the State Council and he would

exercise powers as may be prescribed. The powers and duties of the

Commissioner are specified in Chapter III, Part II of 2010

Regulations. Rule 4 of Chapter III provides that the Commissioner

shall act as a member secretary of all committees of the State

Council, and further, he will act as Chairperson of the Examination

Committee of the State Council. Rule 4 further provides that in case

of an examination conducted by the State Council on a contract basis;

the Commissioner shall be responsible for the design and

organization to conduct the examination as per the terms and

conditions approved by the Council. Therefore, in our view, the

impugned order passed by the Commissioner cancelling the

performance of the candidates cannot be said to be without any

authority of law. The certificate declaring the result of the

examination is signed by the Commissioner, and therefore, in our

view, the Commissioner also has the power to recall such certificate

and cancel the performance. It is settled position in law that power

conferred to issue certificate would also include power to cancel if

Page No.166
TET (GROUP).doc

such certificate was obtained by fraud.

115. The TET – 2019 examination was conducted by the

Maharashtra State Council of Examination / Education on 19 January

2020. The task of conducting the examinations was outsourced to

G.A. Software Company. The examination papers were in the form of

Multiple-Choice Question (MCQ). The answer-sheets of the

petitioners were scanned by Optical Memory Reading System (OMR).

The petitioners were provided with the model answers and the

answer-sheet attempted by them. The results were declared in August

2020 since in the interregnum i.e. from March 2020 to August 2020,

there was lockdown in the country on account of COVID – 19.

116. Out of more than 3,37,333 candidates who appeared for

examinations, approximately 16,000 candidates successfully cleared

the test. These candidates included existing teachers who were

required to pass the test for continuing in service. In addition, there

were other candidates also who wanted to pursue their career as a

teacher in future and teachers teaching in minority institutions,

junior colleges etc. and, therefore, had to mandatorily appear and

clear the said examination for taking job of teaching students of

Standards I to VIII.

Page No.167
TET (GROUP).doc

117. Around December, 2021 a communication was received

from cyber police station, Pune to respondent no.2-Commissioner

informing him about irregularities in TET exam for 2019-2020, which

came to light while investigation into malpractices which crept in

MHADA employment 2020 examination. Statements of candidates

were recorded by the police authorities wherein there is admission of

marks being tampered. In some of the statements, illegal gratification

is also said to have been accepted. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4

immediately swung into action and filed an FIR against its officials

and one Mr. Pritesh Deshmukh of G.A. Software Company. In the

communication by the police to the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4, it was

informed that results of around 7,880 unqualified candidates were

tampered with. A committee of six members was appointed by

respondent no.3-Maharashtra State Examination Council for

verification and revaluation of the digital records in the police

station. This Committee prepared a report on the basis of data

available with the cyber police station. The expert committee found

results of 7,880 candidates having interfered with by tampering with

the marks, fake mark sheet etc. While conducting the verification of

these around 7,880 candidates, 15 clerks were deputed by the

committee for verification of the marks. Pursuant to this report, the

Maharashtra State Examination Council informed respondent No. 2-

Page No.168
TET (GROUP).doc

Commissioner for cancellation of performance of these candidates

and fixing punishment for the offence of malpractices in the

examination. A resolution of the Council was passed on 11 May, 2022

in the special meeting for cancellation of performance of these

candidates. Ultimately, the impugned order dated 3 August 2022

/communications were issued by the Commissioner of the Council

cancelling the performance of these candidates and imposing

penalty/punishment by way of permanently debarring them from

appearing for the TET exams.

118. In our view, based on the above facts, it is a case of

malpractices / irregularity in TET exam at a large scale since out of

around 16,000 successful candidates, marks of approximately 50%

candidates were tampered with. The respondent nos.1 to 4

immediately constituted expert committee of 6 members and with the

support of other staff physically verified these irregularities and

submitted a report, which came to be accepted and the results of

these candidates were cancelled and they were permanently

debarred. Since what was tampered with was only the marks and not

answer-sheets, no expertise is required to do verification of marks of

exam based on MCQ with marks printed on mark-sheets.

Page No.169
TET (GROUP).doc

119. In the issues relating to conduct of examination and

irregularities found therein at a large scale, this Court will restrain

itself from interfering with the decision taken by expert body for

cancellation of the results. The experts in the education field after

verifying the records and after discussing amongst themselves have

come to a conclusion that there has been irregularity in tampering of

the marks of around 7,880 candidates. The action taken is based on

the evidence which was verified by the Committee and its staff.

Therefore, in our view, it cannot be said that there was no sufficient

material for cancellation of the exam results.

120. In education matters and more particularly when it comes

to the present examination which requires a teacher to qualify for

teaching in Standards I to VIII, high standard need to be maintained

by the authority conducting the exam and if such standards are

compromised by anyone then the authority would be the apt to take

the decision and to maintain the standard. We do not find any reason

for interference in the cancellation of the results. Recently and very

often malpractices in exams conducted for taking admission as a

student or for getting employment has become very rampant and

regular. Such practice has to be dealt with stern action so that there is

deterrent in future for getting involved in such practices. Such

Page No.170
TET (GROUP).doc

examinations are conducted to select the best candidates by ensuring

competition with a fair play amongst the candidates. The authorities

have segregated the tainted results based on the initial reports

received by the police and subsequently verified by the committee

and its staff.

121. When it comes to malpractices on such a large extent, the

authorities are justified in cancelling the results of tainted candidates

without giving any opportunity of hearing. In such cases, opportunity

of hearing would not subserve the purpose and the justice need to be

done. Looking to the fact that the marks have been admittedly

altered as observed above giving opportunity of hearing for

cancellation of results would have not made any difference and

furthermore no prejudice caused is shown to us by not affording

opportunity of hearing and more particularly when as observed by us

above there has been admission of tampering of marks. It is also

important to note that in the present case, the exams were held in

January, 2020, the results were declared in August, 2020.

Information of malpractice came to the knowledge of respondent nos.

1 to 4 in December, 2021 and thereafter expert committee was

formed leading to cancellation of results. Admittedly, the original

answer sheet with the agency G.A. Software who conducted the exam

Page No.171
TET (GROUP).doc

have been destroyed as per the police report but the scanned copies

are available with the respondents. The model answers and the

answer-sheet attempted by the candidates both were furnished to the

candidates in and around February 2020. Though petitioners may not

have retained carbon copy of their answer sheets after declaration of

results but the respondents have scanned copies of answer sheets

attempted by the petitioners and counter signed by them. The

irregularities happened by altering the actual marks with the marks

printed on the mark-sheet. The respondents / expert committee has

verified the scanned copies and thereafter gave a report based on

which the results have been cancelled. Therefore, there is sufficient

material as observed by us with the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for

concluding that actual marks obtained have been tampered with by

printing different marks on the mark-sheet. For example, if the actual

marks obtained is 64 the mark-sheet shows 82. Not a single

petitioner has come before this Court with a stand that he is ready to

show that he has secured marks shown in the final mark sheet which

is proved to be tampered.

122. Therefore, in our view, the prayer made for quashing the

impugned order/communication to the extent that the authorities

have cancelled the results of the petitioners cannot be accepted and

Page No.172
TET (GROUP).doc

the respondent nos.1 to 4 have rightly taken the decision of

cancellation based on the recommendation made by the expert

committee who after verifying the documents have come to a

conclusion that there has been tampering with the marks of around

7880 candidates. None of the petitioners has prayed that whole of

the examination should have been cancelled and such an argument

across the bar cannot be considered. The successful candidates are

also not made parties. Therefore, challenge is only qua cancellation.

123. The reference in the impugned order dated 03.08.2022 to

Sections 7 and 8 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices at

University, Board and Other Specified Examination Act, 1982 is in the

context of these provisions having been invoked in the FIR lodged

with the Police authorities. It is not correct to say that the impugned

order is passed under Sections 7 and 8 of the 1982 Act. It is only to

give background which led to the impugned order that there is a

reference to the FIR in which these provisions have been quoted.

Therefore, submission of the petitioners on this count to quash order,

cannot be accepted.

124. The submission of the petitioners that cancellation of

results would amount to punishment / penalty cannot be accepted.

The respondents have only corrected the marks which they were

Page No.173
TET (GROUP).doc

actually entitled to with the marks which were shown and tampered

with on the mark-sheet and since unfair means were adopted the

consequence was cancellation. In our view, this would amount to

correction of the marks originally shown on the mark-sheet which

were found to be incorrect because of the unfair means adopted by

tampering the marks. By no stretch of imagination can it be treated

as penalty but it amounts to correcting the marks originally shown on

the mark-sheet with the correct marks post the inquiry and

verification done by the respondent. Therefore, this contention

cannot be accepted. The impugned action of cancellation of results is

a remedial measure and therefore, cannot be construed as penal in

nature.

125. The submission of the petitioners that order dated 3 August

2022 is a non-reasoned and non-speaking and, therefore, is required

to be quashed cannot be accepted. In our view, the order does

contain the reasons for cancellation of the results and imposing the

penalty. The order refers to 11 documents starting from the year

2019 till 2022 which were considered before passing the order.

Though these documents were not annexed to the order but in the

reply of the respondents these documents have been annexed. Prior

to filing of the petition, none of the petitioners had sought for these

Page No.174
TET (GROUP).doc

documents. In the first paragraph of the order, there is a reference to

FIR No. 56 of 2021 which was filed on account of malpractices

conducted in TET-2019 exam. The second paragraph states that based

on the said FIR, verification was done of answer papers of 7,880

candidates who were found to have tampered with the results. The

third paragraph refers to the principle of segregation between tainted

and untainted candidates. The fourth paragraph refers to the 1998

Act. The fifth paragraph refers to Resolution No. 350 dated 24 June

2022 passed by the Council and thereafter regarding each

malpractice details are given. It is thereafter that the performance of

7,880 candidates have been cancelled. In our view, this order cannot

be termed as unreasoned and non-speaking. The order does give the

reasons for cancellation of the performance of 7880 candidates and

the nature of malpractice used in tampering with the marks. Such

orders which are required to be passed on emergency basis to instil

public confidence in the system cannot be expected to run into

hundreds of pages. It is sufficed if the basic malpractice is specified

and the candidates whose performance are cancelled is mentioned

along with reference to the Act and the documents leading to such an

action. In our view, on a reading of the order dated 3 August 2022, it

cannot be said to be a non-speaking or non-reasoned order.

Page No.175
TET (GROUP).doc

126. Purity of any examination and more particularly pertaining

to academic accomplishment or suitability of candidates for the post

of teacher is unquestionable requirement of the rationality of any

examination process. The authorities of the State have to take

appropriate measures to maintain the purity of examination process.

It is by now well settled principle of law that where there are

allegations of occurrence of large-scale malpractices in the conduct of

any examination process, the authorities are entitled to cancel the

results of the tainted candidates. The authorities are not obliged to

seek proof of each and every fact which vitiated the performance. The

requirement of strict rules of evidence for the proof of facts would

neither be consistent with the demands of larger public interest nor

would be conducive to the efficiency of administration. In such cases,

the principles of Wednesbury are required to be considered and larger

latitude is to be given to the authorities who are in-charge of

conducting the exam. In the instant case, there is more than adequate

evidence of tampering of the marks and in such circumstance it

cannot be said that the impugned action of the respondents are so

outrageous in its defiance of logic or model standards. It is not

necessary for the evidence on record to point to one and only

conclusion which is that malpractice has taken place at a systematic

level but same must be on the basis of preponderance of probability

Page No.176
TET (GROUP).doc

that such malpractice has occurred. In the instant case, based on the

comparison of the answer-sheet with the original marks and the

marks which they were entitled to, in our view, this is not a case of no

evidence but it is a case of sufficient evidence with the respondents

coupled with admission as stated above for taking the impugned

action.

127. In academic matters, the Court shall keep their hands off

since the issues fall within the exclusive domain of the experts. The

Court shall not preside in appeal over the opinion expressed by the

expert academic bodies and it is wise and safe for the Court to leave

the decision of academic experts who are familiar with the problem

they face than the Court generally.

128. This Court has to test the prayers sought for by the

petitioners by examining whether decision making process has been

followed and this Court cannot examine the decision. The decision

impugned in the present petition relates to cancellation of

performance of candidates in the exam by order dated 3 August

2022. The Court has to examine what steps respondents have taken

before passing the impugned order. On 16 December 2021, the Cyber

Police, Pune informed Education Commissioner about malpractice

having found in TET 2019 exam. Statements of the candidates were

Page No.177
TET (GROUP).doc

recorded by the police authorities before 3 August 2022 order. On

receipt of the said letter, on the same day the State informed the

Council to investigate this issue on priority basis and to take

appropriate action. The State also directed the Council to cooperate

with the police in the investigation of the scam. The power to issue

such a direction can be found in Section 26 of the 1998 Act. The

Chairman of the Council immediately approached the police

authorities and lodged an FIR No.56 of 2021. In the said FIR, based

on the information received from the police authorities, details of the

scam was narrated and the persons involved were named as accused.

On 3 February 2022, cyber police addressed a letter to the Council in

which the police authorities stated that they have found malpractice

in the marks of 7,880 candidates out of around 3 lakh candidates

who appeared for the exam. The police, therefore, requested the

Council to verify the malpractice at their end by deputing necessary

persons at the police station where the data was available. On 8

February 2022, the Council constituted a six-member Committee

headed by Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner,

Superintendent etc. to verify the data at the police station and make

a report. The power to constitute such a committee can be traced to

Section 18(2) and Section 23(1)(p) of the 1998 Act.

Page No.178
TET (GROUP).doc

129. On 10 February 2022, the State directed the council to

immediately examine the malpractice within 15 days and to take

appropriate action. Again, this direction can be traced to Sections 23

to 26 of the 1998 Act. On 14 February 2022, the Committee gave its

report to the Council, wherein the different types of malpractice

found in verification of 7,880 answer-sheet was reported. On 11 May

2022, Council deliberated the issue after considering the above

report. On 11 May 2022, a meeting was called off the Council which

was attended by eight members who were high ranking officials and

the resolution was passed with regard to the malpractice. On 25 May

2022, the resolution was placed before the appropriate Committee

for action. On 10 June 2022, the State addressed a letter to the

Council on the action to be taken on the malpractice and report the

same. On 24 June 2022, Resolution No.350 was passed by the

Council in regard to the malpractices which occurred in TET 2019

exam and ultimately on 3 August 2022, the impugned order was

passed by the Commissioner of the Council cancelling the results. In

our view, based on the above events, the petitioners cannot contend

that the decision-making process was flawed. The sequence of events

clearly shows that a detailed exercise was done by the respondents to

maintain the purity of the examination before passing the impugned

order on 3 of August 2022. It is not a case of decision in haste, but it

Page No.179
TET (GROUP).doc

is a case of a decision after due verification and deliberation to

maintain the standard of the examination.

130. In academic matters, where teachers have to be selected

based on the results of competitive exam, one cannot take a hyper-

technical view by contending that the respondents have no authority

to pass the impugned order or the impugned order is passed by an

authority having no jurisdiction. In any case, as observed by us

above, there are sufficient powers granted under the 1998 Act with

the respondents for passing the impugned order. Therefore, this

Court does not find any fault in the decision-making process of the

respondents in passing the impugned order.

131. The submission made by the petitioners that in the

impugned order there is a reference to provisions by referring to the

1998 Act which does not find place in the said Act and, therefore, the

impugned order is bad in law cannot be accepted. The impugned

order refers to the 1998 Act and we have already analysed the said

Act and have come to a conclusion that the powers have been rightly

exercised in accordance with the various provisions of the Act. We do

agree that there is a wrong reference to Section 8(2)(t). In our view,

this refers to Regulation 8 of part II of Chapter V of 2010 Regulations

which are formed under the 1998 Act. Therefore, though the name of

Page No.180
TET (GROUP).doc

the regulation is not specified in the order but the Regulation does

exist in which there is a reference to Regulation 8(2)(t). It is settled

position that mere mentioning or an error in referring to a particular

provision would not vitiate the order, if the source can be traced to

the provision in the Act for exercising the power which, in the instant

case as observed above, such power does exist in the Act itself.

Therefore, contention raised on this count by the petitioners is

required to be rejected.

132. On a harmonious reading of the 1998 Act and the 2010

Regulations, various committees formed under the Regulations have

to recommend their views to the State Council and the Commissioner

of the State Council has to finally act in accordance with his duties,

which encompasses the conduct of the examination. The State

Government, under Section 26 of the 1998 Act is the ultimate

authority for giving directions and for the supervision and control of

all the authorities under the Act and the Regulations. Therefore, the

contention raised by the petitioners that the impugned orders are

passed at the behest and direction of the State Government and not

independently by the committees, cannot be accepted.

133. By GR dated 23 August 2013, State, pursuant to enactment

of RTE Act, 2009 made TET compulsory. The State decided to

Page No.181
TET (GROUP).doc

conduct TET twice a year. The said GR provided for 2 papers to be

set-up and minimum marks required for declaring a candidate as

successful was also specified. The TET passing certificate was also

awarded by the State. It was decided that the task of conducting

exam would be entrusted to Maharashtra State Examination Council

on behalf of the State for a fee.

134. Pursuant to above, when malpractice was found in TET-

2019 exam conducted by Council on behalf of the State, the school

and sports department of the State instructed the Commissioner of

the Council by letter dated 10 June 2022, to declare results of tainted

candidates as “disqualified” and that of untainted candidates as

“qualified”. The State instructed Council to take action under 2010

Regulations for imposing penalty including permanent debarment.

The list of candidates working with Zilla Parishad School was to be

sent to concerned management for taking action in accordance with

service conditions and pending said action to freeze Shalarth IDs and

salary and further to terminate services after giving hearing.

135. In our view, directions in communication dated 10 th June

2022 were issued by the State to the Council, since Council had

conducted exam on behalf of the State. On a reading of this letter the

Council was directed to take decision in accordance with law without

Page No.182
TET (GROUP).doc

seeking approval of the State. This communication was not in terms

to be interpreted that Council has to mandatorily do what was

advised. It was in the nature of advisory. The source of power to issue

such directions can be found in Section 26 of the 1998 Act which we

have analysed in earlier part of our analysis. The object of 1998 Act is

to regulate conduct of examinations in the State of Maharashtra. In

our view, giving directions to the Council with regard to malpractice

found in TET exam conducted by the Council on behalf of the State is

an integral and incidental matter. This would also be in terms of

Section 35(2) of the 1998 Act since such directions are consistent

with 1998 Act which is enacted to regulate conduct of examination.

Since we have traced the power to issue directions under the 1998

Act, submissions made by relying on 2010 Regulations to challenge

the power is to be rejected. Regulations are to supplement the Act

and not to override the Act. These directions cannot be compared to

provisions in other Acts where one authority is statutorily

empowering to act in a certain way without there being power to

issue directions. In our view, the State would have failed to discharge

its constitutional duties if such directions had not been given.

136. The power for constitution of Committee on 8 February

2022 by the State Council for verifying the documents of tampering

Page No.183
TET (GROUP).doc

can be found under Sections 23(1)(p) and 23(1)(t) since finding out

truth of malpractices committed in the conduct of exams conducted

by the Council is for discharge of its such function of conducting

exams and for the purpose of 1998 Act, which is to regulate exams.

Therefore, no challenge can be assailed by the petitioners on this

count. Merely because there is no examination committee, it cannot

be accepted that the Council has no power to form other committee

for investigation and preparing report of malpractice.

137. The submissions of the petitioners that it is Examination

Committee under Regulation 13 of Chapter V of Part II of 2010

Regulations which should have cancelled the performance and have

imposed the penalty cannot be accepted. Regulation 13 provides for

duties and functions and not with powers of the Committee. The

Regulation and 1998 Act makes a distinction between duties and

powers. Furthermore, Regulation 13(2)(q) only provides the said

Committee to make its report to the Standing Committee. If such

duties cannot be exercised because of any reason then certainly State

Council can step in to do the duties. Similarly, Regulation 12(2)

provides for duties of Standing Committee and not powers. Similarly,

Regulation 11(2)(i) provides for duties and functions of examination

committee to recommend and not power to cancel results and impose

Page No.184
TET (GROUP).doc

penalty. Regulation 8 dealing with Executive Committee is under the

control of the State Council and Regulation 8(2) deals with its duties

and does not empower them to cancel results and impose penalties.

138. Submission made by Mr. Pakale, learned senior counsel in

rejoinder that in his case, reply has not been filed by the State and

the Council and, therefore, is handicapped, is not acceptable. From

day one, it was the understanding that the replies filed in Writ

Petition No.9430 of 2022 will be treated as replies in all the matters.

The learned senior counsel in his oral submission has relied upon the

replies filed by the State and the Council in Writ Petition No.9430 of

2022. Therefore, it is not correct in rejoinder to submit that the

petitioners are handicapped since no replies have been filed in their

matters.

139. We appreciate the fair stand taken by the learned senior

counsel Mr. Pakale that it is not his case, that the Council does not

have power to cancel the performance. We appreciate the submission

by Mr. Pakale made that the punitive action taken is without

jurisdiction and it is this point which is being canvassed by him. We

have dealt with the issue of punishment and the principle of natural

justice separately.

Page No.185
TET (GROUP).doc

140. The submission of Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned senior

counsel that the petitions are not premature is required to be

accepted. Though in communication dated 10 June 2022, the State

was required to take certain steps before imposing the penalty or

taking any punitive action, but by virtue of 3 August 2022 order, the

respondent-State and Council cancelled the performance and

permanently debarred the candidates from appearing in TET. The

consequence of that would be that the candidates would not be

eligible to continue in teaching job. Therefore, in our view, these

petitions are not premature. The submission of Mr. Bandiwadekar

that Section 23(1)(t) does not empower the State/Council to

terminate Shalarth IDs and employment is not correct. The Shalarth

IDs have not been terminated but has been frozen subject to

disciplinary action being initiated against the teachers under the

applicable law. The submission of Mr. Bandiwadekar that

Government has not filed any reply in his petition and, therefore, is

unable to make any submissions is also not acceptable. Similar

submission made by Mr. Pakale has been rejected by us.

141. The submission of Mr. Sapkal, learned senior counsel that

the decision in the case of Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust (supra)

applies to all the petitioners cannot be accepted. On a reading of

Page No.186
TET (GROUP).doc

paragraphs 220 to 224 along with order passed in Review Petition,

the benefit of extended time to clear TET exam is restricted only to

the teachers who were duly appointed prior to introduction of TET

being made compulsory. The benefit of this judgment cannot be

availed by the persons who were not in service on the date when TET

was made compulsory. In paragraph 224, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

has categorically stated that those aspiring for appointment and those

in service as teachers aspiring for appointment by promotion must

qualify the TET or else they would have no right of consideration of

their candidature. In Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust (supra) order

dated 29 May 2026 in paragraph 33, it is once again made clear that

the time for in-service teachers to acquire TET qualification has been

extended up to 31 August 2028. Therefore, the period extended by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot come to the rescue of the teachers

who have been recruited after the date of TET being made

compulsory.

142. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.

Bandiwadekar that the decision in the case of Nidhi Kaim (supra)

cannot have any precedent value since there was a difference of

opinion on the issue of the punishment which was referred to larger

bench and till today it has not been decided is not correct. The

Page No.187
TET (GROUP).doc

reference to larger bench of this decision has already been decided by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 13 February 2017 and reported in

(2017) 4 SCC 1.

143. Reliance placed on Government Resolution (GR) dated 23

August, 2013 and more particularly, Clause 5(12)(iv) by the

petitioners, to submit that the action can be taken only against the

Examination Council and not against the candidates who appeared

for the exam, cannot be accepted. The context in which this GR was

issued was that the responsibility of conducting TET exam was

entrusted to the Maharashtra State Examination Council, and in that

context, the responsibility is fixed on the said Council if any

irregularities are found. The said Government Resolution nowhere

states that the candidates whose results are tampered with will not

face any action. In absence of any such specific clause in the said

Government Resolution prohibiting any action against the candidates,

reading such a restriction into the GR by the petitioners cannot be

accepted.

144. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjuman Ishaat-

E-Taleem Trust vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 53, while invoking

Article 142 of the Constitution of India, has held that those teachers

who were in service prior to the advent of the RTE Act, and have less

53 2025 INSC 1063

Page No.188
TET (GROUP).doc

than five years of service left as on the date of the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court (1 September, 2025) and does not wish to

seek promotion, may continue in service till the age of

superannuation without qualifying the TET exam. However, such

teachers would not be entitled to promotion, and if such teachers

aspire for promotion, they will have to qualify TET. Therefore, the

petitioners whose performance is cancelled by the respondents and

who satisfy the conditions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

will not be affected by our present order upholding cancellation of

the performance of such candidates. However, that would not

preclude the respondents from taking any penal action for having

indulged in malpractices, subject to the respondents following the

principles of natural justice.

145. In the instructions for the candidates on the reverse side of

the admit card, it was specifically brought to the notice of the

candidates that if the candidates engage in any malpractices then

severe consequences would follow. Guidelines for conducting TET

dated 11 February 2011, issued by the National Council for teachers

education in paragraph 12 dealing with procedure to conduct the

Test also states that serious view will be taken in case of any

malpractice or impersonation. It is also important to note that none

Page No.189
TET (GROUP).doc

of the petitioners have challenged the cancellation of the

performance on the ground that marks when compared with model

answers and the answer-sheet attempted by them and which were

originally printed on the mark-sheet are the correct marks nor any

petitioners have made a positive case on these lines in the present

group of petitions. This would amount to admission of the petitioners

that the marks originally allotted when compared with the answer-

sheet and model answers has been admittedly tampered with.

146. In education scam matters and more particularly when it

comes to scam in examination dealing with teachers’ eligibility to

teach children, the Constitutional Court would adopt the approach of

upholding sanctity and purity of examination in case of malpractice

on mass scale rather than getting swayed by challenge to the power

of cancellation of performance. This is moreso when the candidates

have by conduct before the Court by refusing to accept fair invitation

virtually admitted the tampering the marks to which no submissions

have been canvassed by any of the petitioners. Accepting challenge to

cancellation by this Court would amount to failure of its duty to

protect the Constitution of India which would be contrary to the oath

taken by the Judges.

Page No.190
TET (GROUP).doc

147. We have been guided for our view made above, by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with such situation of

malpractice in examination right from the year 1954.

148. We propose to reproduce relevant paragraphs of the

decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which have guided this Court

for coming to the above conclusion.

149. Therefore, in our view, walking on the path shown by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court and applying the same to the present facts

before us, as narrated above, we do not see any reason for interfering

with the decision of respondent nos.1 to 4 insofar as it relates to

cancellation of the exam results of the petitioners.

150. The earliest decision rendered by 5 Judge bench of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court is in the case of Vice-Chanceller, Utkal

University and Others vs. S. K. Ghosh and Others54. Paragraph 17 of

this judgment reads as under: -

“17. We are not prepared to perpetrate the error into which
the learned High Court Judges permitted themselves to be led
and examine the facts for ourselves as a court of appeal but in
view of the strictures the High Court has made on the Vice-
Chancellor and the Syndicate we are compelled to observe that
we do not feel they are justified. The question was one of
urgency and the Vice-Chancellor and the members of the
Syndicate were well within their rights in exercising their
discretion in the way they did. It may be that the matter could
have been handled in some other way, as, for example, in the
54 (1954) 1 SCC 44

Page No.191
TET (GROUP).doc

manner the learned Judges indicate, but it is not the function of
courts of law to substitute their wisdom and discretion for that
of the persons to whose judgment the matter in question is
entrusted by the law. The University authorities acted honestly
as reasonable and responsible men confronted with an urgent
situation are entitled to act. They had experts of their own on
their body. They examined others who in their opinion might
throw light on the incident. They themselves compared the two
papers and, after a deliberation of some six hours, arrived at a
unanimous decision and then they reviewed the matter afresh at
a second meeting with the assistance of one of their member
who was not present on the first occasion. It is inaccurate to
describe that as haste and unjust to characterise their action as
unreasonable and lacking due care. This is decidedly not the sort
of case in which a mandamus ought to issue. We accordingly set
aside the order of the High Court.”

151. The issue again came up for consideration before the

Constitution bench of 3 judges in the case of Bihar School

Examination Board (supra). Chief Justice Hidayatullah observed in

paragraphs 13 to 15 on behalf of the bench as under :-

“13. This is not a case of any particular individual who is being
charged with adoption of unfair means but of the conduct of all
the examinees or at least a vast majority of them at a particular
centre. If it is not a question of charging any one individually
with unfair means but to condemn the examination as
ineffective for the purpose it was held. Must the Board give an
opportunity to all the candidates to represent their cases? We
think not. It was not necessary for the Board to give an
opportunity to the candidates if the examinations as a whole
were being cancelled. The Board had not charged any one with
unfair means so that he could claim to defend himself. The
examination was vitiated by adoption of unfair means on a mass
scale. In these circumstances it would be wrong to insist that the
Board must hold a detailed inquiry into the matter and examine
each individual case to satisfy itself which of the candidates had

Page No.192
TET (GROUP).doc

not adopted unfair means. The examination as a whole had to
go.
14. Reliance was placed upon Ghanshyam Das Gupta case to
which we referred earlier. There the examination results of three
candidates were cancelled, and this Court held that they should
have received an opportunity of explaining their conduct. It was
said that even if the inquiry involved a large number of persons,
the Committee should frame proper regulations for the conduct
of such inquiries but not deny the opportunity. We do not think
that that case has any application. Surely it was not intended
that where the examination as a whole was vitiated, say by
leakage of papers or by destruction of some of the answer books
or by discovery of unfair means practised on a vast scale that an
inquiry would be made giving a chance to every one appearing
at that examination to have his say? What the Court intended to
lay down was that if any particular person was to be proceeded
against, he must have a proper chance to defend himself and
this did not obviate the necessity of giving an opportunity even
though the number of persons proceeded against was large. The
Court was then not considering the right of an examining body
to cancel its own examination when it was satisfied that the
examination was not properly conducted or that in the conduct
of the examination the majority of the examinees had not
conducted themselves as they should have. To make such
decisions depend upon a full-fledged judicial inquiry would hold
up the functioning of such autonomous bodies as Universities
and School Board. While we do not wish to whittle down the
requirements of natural justice and fair-play in cases where such
requirement may be said to arise, we do not want that this Court
should be understood as having stated that an inquiry with a
right to representation must always precede in every case,
however different. The universities are responsible for their
standards and the conduct of examinations. The essence of the
examinations is that the worth of every person is appraised
without any assistance from an outside source. If at a centre the
whole body of students receive assistance and are managed to
secure success in the neighbourhood of 100% when others at
other centres are successful only at an average of 50%, it is
obvious that the University or the Board must do something in
the matter. It cannot hold a detailed quasi-judicial inquiry with a

Page No.193
TET (GROUP).doc

right to its alumni to plead and lead evidence etc., before the
results are withheld or the examinations cancelled. If there is
sufficient material on which it can be demonstrated that the
university was right in its conclusion that the examinations
ought to be cancelled then academic standards require that the
university's appreciation of the problem must be respected. It
would not do for the Court to say that you should have
examined all the candidates or even their representatives with a
view to ascertaining whether they had received assistance or
not. To do this would encourage indiscipline if not also perjury.
15. We are satisfied that no principle of natural justice was
violated in this case. The Board through its Chairman and later
itself reached the right conclusion that the examinations at this
Centre had been vitiated by practising unfair means on a mass
scale and the Board had every right to cancel the examination
and order that a fresh examination be held. There was no need
to give the examinees an opportunity of contesting this
conclusion because the evidence in the case was perfectly plain
and transparent. We therefore set aside the order of the High
Court and ordered dismissal of the writ petition but made no
order as to costs.”

152. The next decision is in the case of Maharashtra State Board

of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education vs. K. S. Gandhi and

Others55. Justice K. Ramaswamy on behalf of the bench observed in

paragraphs 10, 29 and 37 observed as under :-

“10. The question then is whether the candidates or their parents
or guardians are privy to the fraudulent fabrication. Since we are
informed that investigation in this regard by the police is in
progress, we refrain to express any final opinion in this regard.
Suffice to state that the records clearly establish that there was a
fraudulent fabrication of the moderators' marks sheets of 283
candidates including the respondents herein. The question,
therefore, emerges whether the conclusion reached by the

55 (1991) 2 SCC 716

Page No.194
TET (GROUP).doc

Standing Committee that the fabrication was done at the behest
of either the candidate or the parents or the guardians to their
advantage is based on records. We remind ourselves that while
exercising the powers, under Article 226 or Article 136 of the
Constitution, by the High Court or of this Court, we are not
sitting as a court of appeal on the findings of facts recorded by
the Standing Committee (domestic enquiry body), nor have
power to evaluate the evidence as an appellate court and to
come to its own conclusions. If the conclusions reached by the
Board can be fairly supported by the evidence on record then the
High Court or this Court has to uphold the decision, though as
appellate court of facts, may be inclined to take a different view.
11……….
12……….
13………
14………..
….
….
29. In Ghazanfar Rashid v. Secretary, Board of High School and
Intermediate Education, U.P. AIR 1979 All 209, a Full Bench,
speaking through our learned brother K. N. Singh, J. (as he then
was) dealing with the standard of proof of the charge of use of
unfair means at the examination, it was held that it was the duty
of the Examination Committee etc., to maintain purity of
examination and if examinee is found to have used unfair means
at the examination, it is the duty of the Examination Committee
to take action against the erring examinees to maintain the
educational standard. Direct evidence is available in some cases
but in a large number of cases direct evidence is not available. In
that situation the Examination Committee has of necessity to rely
on circumstantial evidence which may include the answer given
by the examinee, the report of the Superintendent of the centre,
the invigilator and the report of the experts and other attending
circumstances. The Examination Committee, if it relies upon such
evidence to come to the conclusion that the examinee has used
unfair means in answering questions than it is not open to the
High Court to interfere with that decision, merely because the
High Court may take a different view on reassessment of those
circumstances. While it is open to the High Court to interfere
with the order of the quasi-judicial authority, if it is not

Page No.195
TET (GROUP).doc

supported by any evidence or if the order is passed in
contravention of the statutory provisions of the law or in
violation of the principles of natural justice, the court has no
jurisdiction to quash the order merely on the ground that the
evidence available on record is insufficient or inadequate or on
the ground that different view could possibly be taken on the
evidence available on the record. The Examination Committee
has jurisdiction to take decision in the matter of use of unfair
means not only on direct evidence but also on probabilities and
circumstantial evidence. There is no scope for importing the
principles of criminal trial while considering the probative value
of probabilities and circumstantial evidence. The Examination
Committee is not bound by technical rules of evidence and
procedure as are applicable to courts. We respectfully agree with
the ratio.
30………..
31……….
32……….
33………
34………..
35…………
36……….
37. It is thus well settled law that strict rules of the Evidence Act,
and the standard of proof envisaged therein do not apply to
departmental proceedings or domestic tribunal. It is open to the
authorities to receive and place on record all the necessary,
relevant, cogent and acceptable material facts though not proved
strictly in conformity with the Evidence Act. The material must
be germane and relevant to the facts in issue. In grave cases like
forgery, fraud, conspiracy, misappropriation, etc. seldom direct
evidence would be available. Only the circumstantial evidence
would furnish the proof. In our considered view inference from
the evidence and circumstances must be carefully distinguished
from conjectures or speculation. The mind is prone to take
pleasure to adapt circumstances to one another and even in
straining them a little to force them to form parts of one
connected whole. There must be evidence direct or
circumstantial to deduce necessary inferences in proof of the
facts in issue. There can be no inferences unless there are
objective facts, direct or circumstantial from which to infer the

Page No.196
TET (GROUP).doc

other fact which it is sought to establish. In some cases the other
facts can be inferred, as much as is practical, as if they had been
actually observed. In other cases the inferences do not go beyond
reasonable probability. If there are no positive proved facts, oral,
documentary or circumstantial from which the inferences can be
made the method of inference fails and what is left is mere
speculation or conjecture. Therefore, when an inference of proof
that a fact in dispute has been held established there must be
some material facts or circumstances on record from which such
an inference could be drawn. The standard of proof is not proof
beyond reasonable doubt "but" the preponderance of
probabilities tending to draw an inference that the fact must be
more probable. Standard of proof cannot be put in a straight -
jacket formula. No mathematical formula could be laid on degree
of proof. The probative value could be gauged from facts and
circumstances in a given case. The standard of proof is the same
both in civil cases and domestic enquiries.

153. In Hanuman Prasad And Others vs. Union of India & Anr.56,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 4 observed as under

“4. It is then contended that though the selected candidates
have no vested right, they had got a legitimate expectation for
appointment when they were selected for being appointed.
They should be given prior opportunity and also know the
reasons for cancellation. In support of this contention, he
placed reliance on para 8 of the judgment of this Court in Asha
Kaul v. State of J&K (1993) 2 SCC 573. It is unexceptionable
that when duly constituted selection committee makes
recommendation for appointment of the selected candidates
the candidates do not get any vested right or legitimate
expectation until they are appointed according to the Rules;
they have a chance to be appointed as they have been selected
by the recruitment agency. In that case, the Government had
cancelled the select list without any reasons. This Court has
laid the above rule in that backdrop. The ratio therein has no
application for the reason that after the perusal of the report
submitted by the investigating agency, the competent authority

56 (1996) 10 SCC 742

Page No.197
TET (GROUP).doc

had cancelled the selection so that the regular and proper
examination could be conducted giving opportunity to
everyone in a fair manner. No prior opportunity need be given
in the case of mass copying. It is not the case where a named
candidate committed copying. Accordingly, we do not find any
illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal.”

154. In the case of Ram Preeti Yadav vs. U.P. Board of High

School and Intermediate Education and Others57 in paragraphs 20

and 21 it is observed as under :

“20. As regards the submission of the learned counsel to the
effect that the first respondent should be directed to give an
opportunity of hearing to Respondent 3 at this stage cannot be
acceded to. As noticed hereinbefore, it is the positive case of the
first respondent that an opportunity of hearing had been given
to him by the first respondent. Secondly, in a case of mass
copying the principles of natural justice need not be strictly
complied with.
21. In Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. v. Abhilash Shiksha
Prasar Samiti (1998) 9 SCC 236 this Court observed: (SCC p.
237, para 2)
"In the face of this material, we do not see any justification
in the High Court having interfered with the decision taken
by the Board to treat the examination as cancelled. It is
unfortunate that the student community resorts to such
methods to succeed in examinations and then some of
them come forward to contend that innocent students
become victims of such misbehaviour of their companions.
That cannot be helped. In such a situation the Board is left
with no alternative but to cancel the examination. It is
extremely difficult for the Board to identify the innocent
students from those indulging in malpractices. One may
feel sorry for the innocent students but one has to
appreciate the situation in which the Board was placed and
the alternatives that were available to it so far as this
examination was concerned. It had no alternative but to

57 (2003) 8 SCC 311

Page No.198
TET (GROUP).doc

cancel the results and we think, in the circumstances, they
were justified in doing so. This should serve as a lesson to
the students that such malpractices will not help them
succeed in the examination and they may have to go
through the drill once again. We also think that those in
charge of the examinations should also take action against
their supervisors/invigilators etc. who either permit such
activity or become silent spectators thereto. If they feel
insecure because of the strong-arm tactics of those who
indulge in malpractices, the remedy is to secure the
services of the uniformed personnel, if need be, and ensure
that students do not indulge in such malpractices.”

155. In the case of Director (Studies), Dr. Ambedkar Institute of

Hotel Management, Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh

and Other vs. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan58, in paragraph 27 observed as

under :-

“27. Before parting with this case, we would like to refer to the
decisions of this Court which has repeatedly held that the High
Court should not ordinarily interfere with the orders passed in
educational matters by domestic tribunals set up by educational
institutions vide Board of High School & Intermediate Education
v. Bangleshwar Prasad; AIR 1966 SC 875 (vide AIR para 12), J.
P. Kulshrestha (Dr.) v. Allahabad University (1980) 3 SCC 418
(Vide SCC para 17: AIR para17), Rajendra Prasad Mathur v.
Karnataka University; AIR 1986 SC 1448 (vide SCC para 7: AIR
para 7). We wish to reiterate the view taken in the above
decisions, and further state that the High Courts should not
ordinarily interfere with the functioning and orders of the
educational authorities unless there is clear violation of some
statutory rule or legal principle. Also, there must be strict purity
in the examinations of educational institutions and no sympathy
or leniency should be shown to candidates who resort to unfair
means in the examinations.”

58 (2009) 1 SCC 59

Page No.199
TET (GROUP).doc

156. In the case of Nidhi Kaim (supra), the whole law on this

subject was examined and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs

22, 26, 39 (39.1 to 39.6) 42-42.1 to 42.4, 44, 50 and 51 observed as

under:

22. The net result is that the entire exercise of holding PMT
and regulating the admissions of students into the various
medical colleges would be only an exercise of the executive
powers of the State of Madhya Pradesh. If the third respondent
Board is without any authority of law for taking the impugned
action, it is equally without any authority of law to conduct the
common entrance examination (PMT). Any admission based on
the marks obtained at such common entrance examination
would be equally without any authority of law in the sense of
legislative sanction. Whatever be the legal implications of the
exercise of such power vis-à-vis others (which we are not called
upon to examine in these appeals), the appellants cannot be
heard saying that the Board has no authority of law to take
action against them because they had appeared for the said
examination and taken the benefit of securing admissions into
the various medical colleges on the basis of the marks obtained
by them in the examination.

26. This Court in Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas
Chandra Singh, (1970) 1 SCC 648 laid down the principle that
the rule of audi alteram partem need not be complied with in
connection with the cancellation of examinations where it
would be impracticable to apply the said principle. Adoption of
unfair means on a large scale is one of them. This Court did not
go by the percentage of the students who were alleged to have
had resorted to the practice of unfair means. When this Court
characterised the situation as practice of unfair means on a
“large scale”, it used the expression only to distinguish the
situation from cases of practice of unfair means by one or two
students. This Court has also held that there are other
circumstances justifying the departure from complying with the
audi alteram partem rule. They are leakage of question papers
and destruction of a large number of answer papers. In my

Page No.200
TET (GROUP).doc

opinion, the examples given therein are not exhaustive of all
the categories constituting exceptions to the application of the
rule of audi alteram partem. Therefore, the percentage of the
students who are alleged to have resorted to unfair means is
irrelevant. Similarly, resorting to unfair means by a “large
number of students” is not the only circumstance which
justifies the non-compliance with the rule of audi alteram
partem.
27…………
28…………..
29……….
30………..
31………….
32……….
33………..
34………….
35………….
36……………
37………..
38………..
39. Sinha Case judgment, in my view, yields the following
principles :
39.1. Where there are allegations that students resorted to
"unfair means on a large scale" at an examination, this Court
would not insist upon registration of a formal complaint. Any
reliable information suggesting the occurrence of such
malpractice in the examination is sufficient to authorise the
examining body to take action because examining bodies are
"responsible for their standards and the conduct of
examinations" and "the essence of the examination is that the
worth of every person is appraised without any assistance from
an outside source".
39.2. A lone circumstance could itself be sufficient in a given
case for the examining body to record a conclusion that the
students resorted to "unfair means on a large scale" in an
examination. This Court approved the conclusion of the Bihar
School Examination Board that the students had resorted to
unfair means on a large scale in one examination centre and
also approved the decision-making process of the Board on the
basis of circumstantial evidence. The lone circumstance that the

Page No.201
TET (GROUP).doc

success rate of the students who appeared for the examination
from the centre in question is too high in comparison to other
centres.
39.3. In such cases, the examining body need not hold "a
detailed quasi-judicial inquiry with a right to its alumni to
plead and lead evidence, etc." and the examining body's
"appreciation of the problem must be respected."
39.4. To insist on the observance of the principles of natural
justice i.e. giving notice to each student and holding enquiry
before cancelling the examination in such cases would "hold up
the functioning" of the educational institutions which are
responsible for maintenance of the standards of education, and
"encourage indiscipline, if not, also perjury".
39.5. Compliance with the rule of audi alteram partem is not
necessary not only in the cases of employment of "unfair means
on large scale" but also situations where there is a "leakage of
papers" or "destruction of some of the answer books", etc.
39.6. This Court drew a distinction between action against an
individual student on the ground that the student had resorted
to unfair means in the examination and the cancellation of the
examination on the whole (or with reference to a group of
students) because the process itself is vitiated.
40………
41………..
42. From an analysis of the above decisions, the following
principles emerge:
42.1. Normally, the rule of audi alteram partem must be
scrupulously followed in the case of the cancellation of the
examinations of students on the ground that they had resorted
to unfair means (copying) at the examinations.
42.2. But the abovementioned principle is not applicable to the
cases where unfair means were adopted by a relatively large
number of students and also to certain other situations where
either the examination process is vitiated or for reasons beyond
the control of both students and the examining body, it would
be unfair or impracticable to continue the examination process
to insist upon the compliance with audi alteram partem rule.

Page No.202
TET (GROUP).doc

42.3. The fact that unfair means were adopted by students at
an examination could be established by circumstantial
evidence.
42.4. The scope of judicial review of the decision of an
examining body is very limited. If there is some reasonable
material before the body to come to the conclusion that unfair
means were adopted by the students on a large scale, neither
such conclusion nor the evidence forming the basis thereof
could be subjected to scrutiny on the principles governing the
assessment of evidence in a criminal court.
43. ……………
44. In the light of the principles of law emerging from scrutiny
of the abovementioned judgments, we are of the opinion that
the case on hand can fall within the category of exceptions to
the rule of audi alteram partem if there is reliable material to
come to the conclusion that the examination process is vitiated.
That leads me to the next question whether the material relied
upon by the Board for reaching the conclusion that the
examination process was contaminated insofar as the
appellants (and also some more students) are concerned and
the appellants are the beneficiaries of such contaminated
process, is tenable?
45…………
46…………..
47……….
48………..
49………….
50. Even otherwise, in my opinion, it would be futile to
pursue the inquiry in this regard. Assuming for the sake of
argument that the submission of the appellants is right and
there are some cases (of the appellants) where the appellants
can demonstrate (if an opportunity is given to them) that the
circumstantial evidence is not foolproof and therefore, the
impugned order must be set aside on the ground of failure of
natural justice, the Board would still be entitled (in fact it
would be obliged in view of the allegation of systematic
tampering with the examination process year after year) in law
to conduct afresh enquiry after giving notice to each of the
appellants. That would mean spending enormous time both by
the Board and by the appellants for the enquiry and the

Page No.203
TET (GROUP).doc

consequential (inevitable) litigation regarding the correctness
of the eventual decision of the Board.
51. For the abovementioned reasons, I do not propose to
interfere with the impugned judgment on the count that the
rule of audi alteram partem was not complied with by the
respondents before cancelling the admissions of the appellants
herein.

157. The following paragraphs of the decision in the case of

Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) (supra) are relevant :-

2. The appellants before us are the selectees, some of whom have been
working for over five years. They fall into two categories:
(i) selectees with purported evidence and material indicating
wrongdoing, and
(ii) other selectees who claim that they were validly selected and
have committed no wrongdoing.
The State of West Bengal and WBSSC have also challenged the
impugned judgment.
3. The respondents before us are the writ petitioners who have
succeeded before the High Court at Calcutta. Central Bureau of
Investigation (hereinafter “CBI”) which had carried out the
investigation pursuant to the directions given by the High Court at
Calcutta is also arraigned as a respondent. [ Diary No. 21281 of 2024,
SLPs (C) Nos. 16643-45, 18366, 11721, 14331, 22110, 25078 of
2024, etc.]
4. The implicated selectees have challenged the judgment [Baishakhi
Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) v. State of W.B., 2024 SCC OnLine Cal
3862] on the following main grounds: First, that the evidence against
them is weak, unproven and inadmissible. Second, they were
punished without an inquiry, violating the principles of natural justice.
Third, while they were charge-sheeted, they have not been convicted
and should be treated as innocent. The other selectees, the State of
West Bengal, and WBSSC argue that the High Court erred by
annulling the entire selection process based on CBI report and should
have only cancelled the appointments of those found guilty, leaving
the other appointments intact.
35. The following principles emerge from the aforesaid discussion:
(i) When an in-depth factual inquiry reveals systemic irregularities,
such as malaise or fraud, that undermine the integrity of the entire

Page No.204
TET (GROUP).doc

selection process, the result should be cancelled in its entirety.
However, if and when possible, segregation of tainted and
untainted candidates should be done in consonance with fairness
and equity.
(ii) The decision to cancel the selection en masse must be based on
the satisfaction derived from sufficient material collected through a
fair and thorough investigation. It is not necessary for the material
collected to conclusively prove malpractice beyond a reasonable
doubt. The standard of evidence should be reasonable certainty of
systemic malaise. The probability test is applicable.
(iii) Despite the inconvenience caused to untainted candidates,
when broad and deep manipulation in the selection process is
proven, due weightage has to be given to maintaining the purity of
the selection process.
(iv) Individual notice and hearing may not be necessary in all cases
for practical reasons when the facts establish that the entire
selection process is vitiated with illegalities at a large scale.
59. It is also submitted by the tainted candidates that the certificate
under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter “the
Evidence Act”) is inadmissible and thus, the said data is unreliable. In
our opinion, the issues of authenticity of the data viz. the mismatch
between the datasets and the admissibility of the certificate under
Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, need not be decided in these
proceedings, as it falls under the purview of the criminal court.
However, suffice it to state that the Evidence Act does not strictly
apply to the proceedings in a writ court, and the decision is rendered
based on the evidence and material on record. Further, the issue
involved in the present case is different and one relating to the purity
and sanctity of the selection process. Therefore, the Court can rely
upon the contradictory pleas taken by the tainted and the untainted
candidates. In the given facts and circumstances, the failure of WBSSC
to keep scanned/mirror copies of the OMR sheets assumes great
importance.
60. Further, it is clear that there is a discrepancy between the scanned
OMR sheets recovered from the three hard disks in Pankaj Bansal's
possession and the marks recorded in WBSSC's computer/records.
This discrepancy has been acknowledged and accepted by WBSSC.
61. The claim that the data on the three hard disks shows no
interpolation and is consistent with the data in M/s Data Scantech
Solutions' computers fails to account for significant gaps and
discrepancies. These issues, highlighted in both the impugned
judgment and our findings, clearly point to large-scale manipulation
and tampering with results, including rank-jumping, discrepancies in

Page No.205
TET (GROUP).doc

marks, the issuance of appointment letters to candidates not on the
panel, and appointments made beyond the panel's validity period.
65. We have already partially addressed the plea of failure to adhere
to the principles of natural justice while examining the applicable case
law. It is also important to emphasise that, in this case, public notices
were issued, and the candidates/applicants/petitioners were afforded
the opportunity to inspect the data and present their arguments. In
light of the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the principles
of natural justice cannot be invoked to validate the fraud that has
occurred. These principles are not rigid or inflexible; rather, they must
be applied with due regard to the specific facts and circumstances at
hand.

158. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central

Information Commission (supra) was concerned with the provisions

under the RTI Act which are akin to Section 23(1)(t) and other

provisions of the 1998 Act and the relevant paragraphs are as

under :-

17. The absence of an explicit provision for Benches does not negate
the CIC's authority to constitute them, as such powers are implicitly
included within the scope of the CIC's general superintendence and
management responsibilities. The broad language of the RTI Act
indicates an intention to grant the CIC comprehensive authority to
ensure the effective and efficient functioning of the Commission. The
Delhi High Court's narrow reading of the provisions overlooked the
inherent powers of the CIC to manage the affairs of the Commission.
The RTI Act's broad language suggests that the legislative intent was
to provide the CIC with the necessary authority to implement
measures that ensure the Commission's effective operation.
18. In the present case, the RTI Act should be interpreted purposively,
taking into account the broader objectives of the legislation. The
purpose of the RTI Act is to promote transparency and accountability
in the functioning of public authorities, ensuring citizens' right to
information. To achieve these objectives effectively, it is essential that
the Central Information Commission operates efficiently and without
undue procedural constraints. The principle of purposive
interpretation supports the view that the CIC's powers under Section
12(4) of the RTI Act include all necessary measures to manage and

Page No.206
TET (GROUP).doc

direct the Commission's affairs effectively. This includes the ability to
form Benches to handle the increasing volume of cases. The
formation of Benches allows for the efficient allocation of work and
ensures the timely disposal of cases, which is crucial for upholding
the right to information.
19. Furthermore, the High Court's reliance on the absence of explicit
provisions for Benches overlooks the broad language of Sections
12(4) and 15(4) of the RTI Act, which grants the CIC and State Chief
Information Commissioners wide-ranging powers to manage their
respective Commissions' affairs. The legislative intent, as reflected by
the broad language of these provisions, was to provide these officials
with the necessary authority to ensure that their Commissions
function effectively and efficiently. These provisions explicitly use the
words “superintendence, direction and management” of the affairs of
the Commission. There have been various landmark judgments of
this Court which have interpreted the words “superintendence,
direction, and control” occurring in Article 324(1) of the Constitution
in respect of the Election Commission.
22. Therefore, the use of the words “superintendence, direction and
management” in Sections 12(4) and 15(4) of the RTI Act clearly
provides the CIC an ambit of power wide enough to frame its own
Regulations and to delegate its power to a committee formed by it.
The Central Information Commission, utilising these broad powers,
has enacted “the Central Information Commission (Management)
Regulations, 2007”. While the RTI Act does not explicitly grant CIC
the authority to frame Regulations, the overarching powers granted
under Section 12(4) of the RTI Act inherently include the ability to
manage the Commission's affairs effectively. These Regulations are
essential tools for ensuring the efficient administration and operation
of the Commission, addressing various procedural and managerial
aspects necessary for fulfilling its mandate. Focusing narrowly on the
nomenclature and the absence of an explicit provision for regulation-
making within the RTI Act would undermine the broader purpose
and intent of the same. The nomenclature used to describe these
Regulations should not detract from their necessity and their role in
facilitating the Commission's functioning. A purposive interpretation
of Section 12(4) of the RTI Act reveals that the powers of
“superintendence, direction and management” are intended to be
comprehensive, enabling the CIC to adopt measures, including the
framing of Regulations, that ensure transparency, accountability, and
efficient handling of its responsibilities. Thus, the creation of these
Regulations is not only justified but crucial for the CIC to manage its
workload and operational demands effectively, thereby serving the

Page No.207
TET (GROUP).doc

core objectives of the RTI Act.

159. In Ansar Afzal Munniwale & Anr vs. State of Maharashtra

& Ors.59. Paragraph 6 reads as under :-

6. The opposition of the State that those candidates involved in
examination scams should not be allowed to participate in the process
of selection of teachers raises a broader issue which goes beyond
statutory qualifications. Teachers play a crucial role in shaping young,
impressionable minds. They not only impart academic knowledge, but
instill fundamental values of morality, ethics, and civic sense. These
values are the very foundation of an orderly society. When an
individual engages in cheating in an examination or in a fraudulent
scheme such conduct may demonstrate a lack of moral conviction and
an absence of the essential value system required to nurture and
educate future citizens. When such a person seeks a teaching position,
it raises serious concerns. This aspect is especially important when
writ jurisdiction is invoked. Broad societal considerations are also
relevant when a petitioner calls a superior court to exercise its writ
jurisdiction. The mere absence of a legal embargo for a course of
action does not necessarily mean that relief under writ jurisdiction
should automatically be extended in favour of the petitioner. Writ
jurisdiction is a discretionary remedy. The superior court can refuse to
extend its equity jurisdiction in a given case. There is a distinction
between legal qualifications and the broader moral and ethical
implications of appointing individuals who may lack the integrity
necessary to fulfill the responsibilities of a teacher. The impact on
society, especially on young minds, has to be at the forefront of any
judicial consideration. There is one more angle to the issue. It is
common knowledge that there are a large number of applicants and
limited posts, and there is competition for the posts. Therefore, the
candidates who are not tainted can make a grievance that they have
been asked to unfairly compete with those who are tainted.

160. In State of Maharashtra vs. Prabhu (supra), the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in paragraph 4 observed as under :-

4. Even assuming that the construction placed by the High Court and
vehemently defended by the learned counsel for respondent is correct

59 Writ Petition No.9826 of 2024 dtd. 06.09.2026

Page No.208
TET (GROUP).doc

should the High Court have interfered with the order of Government
in exercise of its equity jurisdiction. The distinction between writs
issued as a matter of right such as habeas corpus and those issued in
exercise of discretion such as certiorari and mandamus are well
known and explained in countless decisions given by this Court and
English Courts. It is not necessary to recount them. The High Courts
exercise control over Government functioning and ensure obedience of
rules and law by enforcing proper, fair and just performance of duty.
Where the Government or any authority passes an order which is
contrary to rules or law it becomes amenable to correction by the
courts in exercise of writ jurisdiction. But one of the principles
inherent in it is that the exercise of power should be for the sake of
justice. One of the yardstick for it is if the quashing of the order results
in greater harm to the society then the court may restrain from
exercising the power.

161. In Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav & Ors. vs. Karamveer Kakasaheb

Wagh Education Society & Ors. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in paragraphs 46 and 47 observed as under :-

46. More recently, in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India [(2010) 14
SCC 38 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 889] the case law on the subject was
discussed. It was held that if a litigant does not come to the court with
clean hands, he is not entitled to be heard and indeed, such a person
is not entitled to any relief from any judicial forum. It was said: (SCC
p. 51, para 21)
“21. The principle that a person who does not come to the court
with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his
grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief
is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226
and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in
others courts and judicial forums. The object underlying the
principle is that every court is not only entitled but is duty-bound to
protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any
respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by
resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing
facts which have a bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in
the case.”
47. A mere reference to the order dated 2-5-2003, en passant, in the
order dated 24-7-2006 does not serve the requirement of disclosure. It
is not for the court to look into every word of the pleadings,

Page No.209
TET (GROUP).doc

documents and annexures to fish out a fact. It is for the litigant to
come upfront and clean with all material facts and then, on the basis
of the submissions made by the learned counsel, leave it to the court
to determine whether or not a particular fact is relevant for arriving at
a decision. Unfortunately, the petitioners have not done this and must
suffer the consequence thereof.

162. In the case of State of UP vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad

Singh60, Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 53 and 54 observed as

under :-

53. It is erroneous to equate the powers under Sections 14 and 15 of
the Act with judicial power which, in the absence of express
provisions, could not enable the review of a judicial order after its
exercise on the principle of functus officio. In Sardul Singh v. District
Food and Supplies Controller, Patiala [ Writ Petition No. 126 of 1962,
decided on 19-12-1962] a statutory order, promulgated under Section
3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, contained a provision
enabling the cancellation of a “permit” under certain circumstances.
The contention was that Section 3 of the parent “Act” itself did not
delegate to the subordinate legislative authority to make such a
provision for cancellation and, therefore, the provision for cancellation
in the subordinate legislature was ultra vires. There was no provision
in the Act expressly conferring the power to make a provision for
cancellation of the permit. Section 3(2)(d) of the parent Act merely
enabled the Government to make orders “for regulating by licences,
permits or otherwise, the storage, transport, distribution, disposal,
acquisition, use or consumption of any essential commodity” and
Section 3(2)(j) merely enabled Government to make orders for
incidental and supplementary matters (emphasis supplied). The
question arose whether provisions for cancellation of the permits
envisaged in para 10 of the particular statutory order could be said to
be relatable to or justified as a matter incidental or supplementary to
regulation. This Court held that the power to cancel was an
“incidental and supplementary” matter. It was held:
“If a trade in an essential commodity like coal is to be regulated by
licences or permits, it is obvious that the power to grant licences or
permits must include the power to cancel or suspend such licences
or permits as an ‘incidental or supplementary matter’; otherwise,

60 (1989) 2 SCC 505

Page No.210
TET (GROUP).doc

the very purpose of Section 3 of the Act would be frustrated.”
54. Indeed, the submissions of Shri Thakur on the point contemplate
the exercise of the power to cancel or revoke the permission in three
distinct situations. The first is where the grant is itself vitiated by
fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the grantee at the time of
obtaining the grant. To the second situation belong the class of cases
where the grantee, after the grant violates the essential terms and
conditions subject to which the grant is made. In these two areas, the
power to grant must be held to include the power to revoke or cancel
the permit, even in the absence of any other express statutory
provisions in that behalf. There must, of course be the compliance
with the requirements of natural justice and the grounds must be such
as would justify such drastic action. This cancellation is a preventive
step. The one aspect of the remedial measures is set out in Section 27
of the Act. There may be cases of third kind where the grant may be
voidable at the instance of the Development Authority or otherwise
entitling the Development Authority to initiate appropriate declaratory
or other action to get rid of the effect of the permission.

163. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.61 in paragraph 18 observed as under :-

18. It is well settled that when a power is given to an authority to do
something it includes such incidental or implied powers which would
ensure the proper doing of that thing. In other words, when any
power is expressly granted by the statute, there is impliedly included
in the grant, even without special mention, every power and every
control the denial of which would render the grant itself ineffective.
Thus where an Act confers jurisdiction it impliedly also grants the
power of doing all such acts or employ such means as are essentially
necessary for its execution.

164. In Budhia Swain & Ors. vs. Gopinath Deb & Ors. 62 in

paragraphs 8 and 9 observed as under :-

8. In our opinion a tribunal or a court may recall an order
earlier made by it if

61 (2008) 2 SCC 409
62 (1999) 4 SCC 396

Page No.211
TET (GROUP).doc

(i) the proceedings culminating into an order suffer from
the inherent lack of jurisdiction and such lack of
jurisdiction is patent,
(ii) there exists fraud or collusion in obtaining the
judgment,
(iii) there has been a mistake of the court prejudicing a
party, or
(iv) a judgment was rendered in ignorance of the fact
that a necessary party had not been served at all or had
died and the estate was not represented.
The power to recall a judgment will not be exercised
when the ground for reopening the proceedings or
vacating the judgment was available to be pleaded in the
original action but was not done or where a proper
remedy in some other proceeding such as by way of
appeal or revision was available but was not availed. The
right to seek vacation of a judgment may be lost by
waiver, estoppel or acquiescence.
9. A distinction has to be drawn between lack of
jurisdiction and a mere error in exercise of jurisdiction. The
former strikes at the very root of the exercise and want of
jurisdiction may vitiate the proceedings rendering them
and the orders passed therein a nullity. A mere error in
exercise of jurisdiction does not vitiate the legality and
validity of the proceedings and the order passed thereon
unless set aside in the manner known to law by laying a
challenge subject to the law of limitation. In Hira Lal Patni
v. Kali Nath [AIR 1962 SC 199] it was held:
“The validity of a decree can be challenged in execution
proceedings only on the ground that the court which
passed the decree was lacking in inherent jurisdiction in
the sense that it could not have seisin of the case because
the subject-matter was wholly foreign to its jurisdiction
or that the defendant was dead at the time the suit had
been instituted or decree passed, or some such other
ground which could have the effect of rendering the
court entirely lacking in jurisdiction in respect of the
subject-matter of the suit or over the parties to it.”

Page No.212
TET (GROUP).doc

Issue No. 2 :

Whether respondents - State and Maharashtra Council of
Examination / Education were justified in permanently
debarring the petitioners from appearing for TET
examination without following the principles of natural
justice ?

165. Commissioner of the Maharashtra State Examination

Council in his order dated 3 August 2022 has cancelled the results of

around 7,880 candidates without issuing show cause notice to them.

It was further ordered that these candidates would be permanently

debarred from appearing in the TET exams. Admittedly and

undisputedly before debarring these candidates permanently, no

show cause notice was issued to enable these candidates to give

“their say” on the proposed permanent debarment. Therefore, the

question arises whether such a punishment / penalty of permanently

debarring an individual to appear for TET exams could have been

ordered / passed without giving any show cause notice. There is no

dispute amongst the parties and also based on reading of various

correspondences between the State and the Council that permanent

debarring is nothing but a penalty / punishment as a deterrent

measure to avoid any occurrence of such events in future.

Page No.213
TET (GROUP).doc

166. It is settled law that principle of natural justice has to be

followed by all the authorities before passing order imposing

penalty / punishment unless the case falls in the exceptions to make

out a ground for denial of the opportunity of hearing. Even if

provision does not contemplate of hearing same should be read into

it when it comes to imposing punishment / penalty. The present

case, in our view, does not fall within the exception to deny

pre-decisional hearing insofar as penalty / punishment is concerned.

It is not a case of national security or having grave repercussions

which could not have waited till the punitive action is taken by

complying with the principles of natural justice. The issue of

punishment / penalty, in our view, should have been considered by

the respondents after following basic principles of natural justice

which are applicable before imposing any punishment / penalty. The

respondents have not made out any case or submissions on imposing

penalty / punishment without giving any hearing. This issue stands

on a different footing than issue relating to cancellation of results

which we have already dealt with in earlier paragraphs.

167. The Rule of Audi Alteram Partem was first applied in

human history in the Garden of Eden.

“I remember to have heard it observed by a very learned man
upon such an occasion, that even God himself did not pass

Page No.214
TET (GROUP).doc

sentence upon Adam, before he was called upon to make his
defence. “Adam, says God, where art thou? Hast thou not eaten
of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not
eat?’ And the same question was put to Eve also.”

168. Right to fair hearing is a basic constitutional right given to

the citizens of this country for defending themselves against any

proposed action of punishment or penalty. In our country, where Rule

of Law prevails even a foreign terrorist who had killed innocent

people in front of everyone was given final punishment only after a

fair trial of hearing right up to the highest Court and by following

due process of law. Even in criminal trial, after conviction is ordered,

separate hearing is accorded to the convict on sentence of

punishment. In our view, present proceedings being civil proceedings

would stand on high pedestal and the punishment / penalty could

not have been imposed without giving hearing by one stroke of pen.

169. In the instant case, respondents should have given the

petitioners, before permanently debarring them, a fair pre-decisional

hearing so that the principle of natural justice could have been

complied with. In our view, respondents have not made out any case

for not complying with the basic principles of natural justice before

permanently debarring the petitioners. By the impugned punishment

/ penalty rights of the candidates have been permanently taken away

without giving them any hearing on the quantum of punishment,

Page No.215
TET (GROUP).doc

which action of non-compliance of natural justice, in our view is very

harsh, unfair and unreasonable.

170. The basic principles which are required to be followed

before imposing any punishment / penalty is to issue show cause

notice to the person against whom action is sought to be taken and to

specifically bring to his notice the allegations and the provisions

under which the proposed action is sought to be taken. After the

issuance of such a show cause notice, the noticee is required to be

given sufficient time to file his submissions / say to the proposed

action. The noticee is then required to file his objections /

submissions / say and seek, if required, personal hearing. The

authority issuing a notice should give a personal hearing and also

consider the say of the noticee and thereafter pass a speaking order

either dropping the show cause notice or imposing punishment /

penalty. Such an order should consider all the submissions of the

noticee and also the reasons for rejecting such submissions and for

imposing penalty / punishment.

171. In our view, basic principles narrated above have been

given a go-by and totally disregarded by the respondents before

imposing a punishment of permanently debarring the petitioners

from appearing for TET exams. In our view, therefore, the impugned

Page No.216
TET (GROUP).doc

orders / communications to the extent it permanently debars

petitioners from appearing for TET exams without following the basic

principles of natural justice and the procedure prescribed above is

unfair, unreasonable and unconstitutional.

172. The imposition of a penalty / punishment by an

administrative authority is governed by two distinct but related sets

of requirements:

(A) procedural requirements that govern how the authority
must arrive at its decision and
(B) substantive requirements that govern what the decision
may contain including quantum, proportionality etc.

A penalty order that satisfies (B) but violates (A) is void for

breach of natural justice and a penalty order that satisfies (A) but

violates (B) is liable to be struck down as disproportionate or

unreasoned. Both limbs must be satisfied. In our view, both these

basic requirements have not been satisfied in the instant case nor any

case is made out for giving a go-by. We are conscious of the

malpractice committed by none other than teachers but still it cannot

be a ground of non-complying with natural justice even if the

malpractice is admitted, at least for imposing penalty / punishment.

173. Following five sequential steps should be followed before

imposing a penalty / punishment :-

Page No.217
TET (GROUP).doc

(i) The person must be told with reasonable particularity
what is alleged against him ;
(ii) Any evidence, enquiry report or document, the
authority intends to use against the person must be
shown to him ;
(iii) Written or oral opportunity to explain / define should
be given to the noticee. Such opportunity must be a
genuine hearing and not an empty formality ;
(iv) The decision-maker should be unbiased ; and
(v) The order of penalty should be a reasoned and speaking
order which can be tested in appeal / judicial review.

The above steps have been culled out based on the

following decisions :-

(a) Canara Bank & Ors. vs Debasis Das & Ors.63
(b) Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India64 and
(c) Attorney General vs. Thomas d’Arcy Ryan65
174. Even an administrative power imposing penalty /

punishment should be exercised by following principles of natural

justice. The right of a man to be given a fair opportunity of hearing of

what is alleged against him and of presenting his own case is so

fundamental to any civilised legal system that it is to be presumed

that the legislature intended that a failure to observe it would render

null and void any decision reached in breach of this requirement. The

63 2003 SCC OnLine SC 378
64 1978 SCC OnLine SC 25
65 [1980] 2 W.L.R. 143

Page No.218
TET (GROUP).doc

administrative body should act fairly towards the persons who will be

affected by their decisions.

175. In the instant case, in addition to no opportunity of hearing

being given to the petitioners before permanently debarring, it is

relevant to note that none of these petitioners have been made

accused in any criminal proceedings initiated on account of the

alleged TET scam. However, we are shown statements of certain

candidates recorded by the police authorities wherein they have

admitted of their marks having tampered with and also in some cases

monetary gratification has been admitted. The persons whose names

appear in FIR / charge-sheet have been accorded fair hearing while

deciding their bail applications but the petitioners who have been

punished were not given fair pre-decisional hearing. This also leads

us to come to a conclusion that principles of natural justice ought to

have been followed. The sheer number of candidates cannot be a

ground to deny fair hearing when it comes to imposing penalty /

punishment of permanent debarment.

176. In the impugned communication dated 10 June 2022

issued by respondent No.1-State to respondent no.3 – Commissioner

of Council, it was directed that action should be taken for

cancellation of the candidates performance, permanently debarring

Page No.219
TET (GROUP).doc

them from appearing for TET exams or to impose appropriate

penalties in accordance with law and no approval of the Government

would be required. In our view, such a drastic directions by the State

to the Commissioner without following principles of natural justice

severely affects the livelihood of these candidates and thereby

violates fundamental rights granted by the Constitution of India.

Such a procedure is unconstitutional and unreasonable since basic

principles of natural justice of giving opportunity of hearing to these

petitioners have not been followed. The said impugned

communication nowhere directs the authorities not to follow

principles of natural justice but it only states governments approval is

not required.

177. In the above impugned communication, respondent-State

has also directed the Commissioner that Shalarth ID of the candidates

working in Zilla Parishad, aided / partially aided / unaided schools

should be frozen and action should be taken to withhold their salary

and for terminating their services and further direct the management

to pass formal orders in this regard after following due process. As

per the said communication, management / respondents were to take

action by giving hearing pending freezing of salary but on account of

interim orders, inquiry could not be proceeded with. In our view, no

Page No.220
TET (GROUP).doc

relief can be accorded on this count till the inquiry is completed

against teachers in service. Further freezing of salary and Shalarth ID

pending inquiry cannot be treated as final penalty / punishment.

178. In the impugned order dated 3rd August 2022, there is a

reference to the earlier communication of the State dated 10 th June

2022 and the results of the petitioners were cancelled. In addition to

the cancellation, the petitioners were permanently debarred from

appearing in future TET exam. Even in this order, there is no

reference of the basic principles of natural justice having been

followed before permanently debarring the petitioners from

appearing TET exams. In our view, even this order is contrary to basic

principles of natural justice and is unconstitutional in so far as

penalty / punishment is concerned. We make it clear that it is not our

suggestion that such penalty should not have been levied but the

process adopted for levying the penalty is what we have not approved

of.

179. Similar issue had come up for consideration before the

Patna High Court in the case of Prabhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar &

Ors66. This was also a case of teachers’ competitive examination held

in which certain malpractices were found to have occurred and the

petitioners were permanently debarred from appearing in the
66 Civil Writ Petition No. 7615 of 2024 dated 17.04.2025

Page No.221
TET (GROUP).doc

examination on the ground that they had indulged in impersonation

in the examination. The Patna High Court in paragraph no. 18,

quashed such order on the ground of breach of principle of natural

justice as the petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain his

side of the case when the order of permanently debarring was

communicated to the petitioner which would adversely affect the

petitioner. The relevant paragraph no. 18 reads as under :-

“After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is
in complete agreement with the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the
impugned notice and the memo have been issued in complete
breach of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was
not given any opportunity to explain his side of the case when
the impugned notice and memo are having severe penal
consequences as the petitioner has been debarred from
appearing in any future examinations and the said debarment
has been communicated to various Commissions across the
country, which is adversely affecting the petitioner as he is not
in a position to appear in any of the examinations conducted by
any of the Commissions across the country. The Court is
completely dissatisfied with the plea of the Commission taken
in the counter-affidavit and completely fails to appreciate the
stand of the BPSC that merely based on an information by an
agency, the aforesaid notice and the memo were issued behind
the back of the petitioner.”
(emphasis supplied)

180. In our view, this judgment supports the case of the

petitioners that the impugned order imposing permanent debarment

on the petitioners from appearing in the TET examination without

giving any hearing is bad in law.

Page No.222
TET (GROUP).doc

181. In the case of Dr. Manik Bhattacharya V. Ramesh Malik and

others67, President of the Board of Primary Education was removed on

account of illegalities which occurred in recruitment process of

teachers through TET examination. In paragraph 15, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has observed that the order of removal of the

President of the Board was flawed since requirements of procedural

fairness which are necessary to direct removal of a person from a

public post were not followed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was of

the view that the principles of natural justice should have been

followed before removing the President. In the present case also,

decision of imposing punishment by permanently debarring the

petitioners from appearing for future TET examinations is flawed

since admittedly, principles of natural justice are not followed.

182. One of the submissions made by the petitioners that,

pending the present petitions, some of the teachers have qualified by

clearing CTET / TAIT or they were not required to take TET exam for

any other reason but still appeared and therefore, penalty should not

be imposed. In our view, the contention that merely because a

candidate has cleared CTET / TAIT pending the petition, or was not

required to clear the TET exam for any reason, but has appeared in

the exam, and therefore no penal action should be taken against

67 (2022) 17 SCC 781,

Page No.223
TET (GROUP).doc

them, cannot be accepted. The issue is not whether a person who

appeared for the examination was required to clear the examination.

The issue is whether such a candidate has indulged in malpractice.

This issue may be relevant for deciding quantum of punishment but it

cannot be a ground to submit that no penal action can be taken. The

penalty / punishment is for having committed malpractice and not

whether he exams though not required.

183. Merely because the person was not required to appear for

the exam but still has appeared, and his result is cancelled on the

ground of malpractice, cannot be a ground for not initiating penal

action. However, we have already quashed the punishment of

permanent debarment on ground of natural justice however, with

liberty to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance

with law, if they so desire, and all candidates can raise all permissible

contentions before the competent authority to defend themselves

against any proposed penal action.

184. The petitioners have raised various arguments on the issue

of penalty / punishment. However, we do not wish to express any

opinion on these submissions since we have set-aside the punishment

/ penalty only on the ground that no hearing has been given by the

authorities before imposing the penalty / punishment. Therefore, all

Page No.224
TET (GROUP).doc

the contentions of the petitioners are kept open to be agitated in

penalty proceedings, if initiated by the respondents.

185. We, therefore, set aside the penalty / punishment of

permanent debarment with liberty to respondents-State / Council to

initiate proceedings for imposing punishment / penalty in accordance

with law and after following principles of natural justice.

186. Now we propose to deal with decisions relied upon by the

parties.

187. Consideration of decisions relied upon by the petitioners :-

i. The decision in the case of Ghanshyam Das Gupta (supra), is

distinguishable on facts. In that case, the performance of only

three students was cancelled and they were debarred from

appearing in the examination of 1955. It was in this context of

three students that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had quashed

the order cancelling the results and debarring them on the

ground of natural justice. Much water has flown after this

decision and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again

till recently observed that in case of malpractices adopted on

mass scale in the examination, principle of natural justice need

not be followed. Furthermore, in the case of Ghanshyam Das

Gupta (supra), performance of only three students was

Page No.225
TET (GROUP).doc

cancelled whereas, in the instant case, performance of 7,880

candidates has been cancelled. In the present case, tampering

was done by altering the marks on a large scale. It is also

important to note that it was petitioners’ last attempt to clear

the examination and as observed above, petitioners’ have

impliedly accepted the tampering by not coming forward to

verify the marks as per the answer sheet with those printed on

mark sheet. Therefore, in our view, this decision cannot be of

any assistance for quashing the order of cancellation of

performance. However, it does support the case of the

petitioners that before imposing punishment of permanent

debarment, principles of natural justice were required to be

followed.

ii. The decision in the case of Tata Cellular (supra), has laid down

the scope of the judicial review by empowering the Court to

examine the decision-making process. However, the

parameters laid down therein have to be applied based on the

facts before the Court. The case of Tata Cellular (supra) was a

case of commercial tender whereas in the instant case, mass

malpractices have been adopted in the case of 7,880

candidates’ performance. The parameters required for deciding

the malpractices in examination and that too in the

Page No.226
TET (GROUP).doc

examination which qualifies a person to become eligible as a

teacher, has to be evaluated on different parameters and

moreso when there is implied admission of tampering and,

therefore, the guidelines laid down by the decision in the case

of Tata Cellular(supra), cannot be applied to the facts of the

present case by adopting straitjacket formula. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai

(Supra), and Delhi High Court in the case of Preeti Bhardwaj &

Others vs. Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University &

Others68, and Uttaranchal High Court in Ashish Bisht &

Another vs. State of Uttarakhand & Others69, had an occasion

to consider the decision of Tata Cellular (supra) while deciding

the issue of malpractices in examination and after considering

the said decision have restrained from interfering in the

examination matters.

iii. In the case of Shaikh Akbar Nabilal (supra) Shalarth IDs and

salary were frozen without following the procedure laid down

by Government Resolution dated 10 June 2022. The issue

before the Kolhapur Circuit Bench was not whether the TET

examination performance was cancelled. Once the

68 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5542
69 2020 SCC OnLine Utt 610

Page No.227
TET (GROUP).doc

performance of a candidate appearing in TET examination is

cancelled then the consequential order of freezing the salary

and Shalarth IDs pending enquiry need not follow the

principles of natural justice as per the Government Resolution

dated 10 June 2022. The said Government Resolution dealt

with issue of Shalarth ID obtained by fraud, etc. and

cancellation thereof with which we are not concerned. The

issue before us is cancellation of TET results which impliedly

have been admitted by the petitioners. Therefore, this decision

cannot be of any assistance to the petitioners and cannot be

made applicable in the light of facts of present case.

iv. The decision in the case of Chandrika Jha (supra) was relied

upon by the petitioners for the submission that higher

authority cannot issue direction to the lower authority for

passing the orders in a particular way. Based on admission of

petitioners tampering reliance placed on this decision before

the Constitutional Court is misconceived. In our view, this

decision would also not be of any assistance since the State

had only directed the Council to examine the malpractice and

take appropriate actions for imposing the penalty and also

consider for permanent debarment. The State did not direct

the Council to pass an order permanently debarring the tainted

Page No.228
TET (GROUP).doc

candidates. In any case, insofar as the penalty is concerned, we

have quashed on the ground of principle of natural justice and

therefore, this decision would not be of any assistance to the

petitioners. Insofar as cancellation of result is concerned, we

have already observed that there was sufficient material to

cancel the result by the authority who had issued the passing

certificate namely the Commissioner of the Council which we

have held is empowered to cancel the results.

v. The decision in the case of Vijay Singh (Supra) has been relied

upon the issue of penalty being permanent debarring the

petitioners from appearing in the exam. We have quashed the

punishment on the ground of natural justice and therefore, the

occasion does not arise for this Court to consider the said

decision.

vi. The decision in the case of Joint Action Committee of Air Line

Pilots’ Associations of India (ALPAI) (Supra) has been relied

upon by the petitioners for the proposition that the authority

which has been conferred with competence under statute alone

can pass the order. In the instant case, the order dated 3

August 2022 has been passed by the Commissioner of the

Maharashtra State Examination Council based on the

recommendation made by the Committee. Even though the

Page No.229
TET (GROUP).doc

Executive Committee was not in existence, the issue was

examined by the Committee and a resolution was passed

prescribing the penalty which was forwarded to the State

Council and the Commissioner who is the top most officer of

the Council passed the order. Even if executive committee have

been in existence the said Committee had to give its

recommendation to the State Council and the State Council

through the Commissioner would have passed the appropriate

order. In any case, we have observed that order is passed by

appropriate authority to cancel the passing certificate and

more particularly when the petitioners have accepted

tampering as observed by us. Therefore, in our view the said

decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present

case.

vii. In the case of Dr. M. S. Mudhol (Supra), the petitioners relied

upon the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the said case to the effect that if the Director of education has

illegally approved the appointment, although the candidate did

not have the requisite academic qualification and such a

person held a post for almost 12 years it would be inadvisable

to disturb him from the said post. In our view, this decision

cannot be of any assistance to the facts of the present case,

Page No.230
TET (GROUP).doc

wherein performance of 7,880 candidates have been tampered

with and cancellation is done within few months of scam and

within 1-½ year of the exam. If this decision is applied, then

it would be giving seal of approval to the candidates who have

admitted marks having tampered with. This Court cannot be a

party to such approval and therefore this decision cannot be

made applicable to the facts of the present case. This Court

based on present facts would not invoke its equitable

jurisdiction to condone such malpractice.

viii.The decision in the case of Pandurang Kanekar (supra) has

been relied on principle of natural justice. On the issue of

penalty, we have quashed permanent debarring on the ground

of natural justice. However, the said principle for the reasons

stated above cannot be applicable for the cancellation of

performance of the candidates whose names appeared in

regard to tampering of the marks and who have admitted the

guilt.

ix. Mr. Pakale, learned senior counsel has relied upon more than

17 decisions. These decisions are not applicable to the facts of

the present case. These decisions either deal with punishment

under service law or cancellation of result of one or a few

students or does not deal with cases of mass alteration of

Page No.231
TET (GROUP).doc

marks. There is no dispute on following of principles of natural

justice but same as observed by various decisions of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court do not apply to cancellation of results

/ exams due to large scale malpractice and furthermore we

have held that petitioners have admitted tampering. Therefore,

these decisions cannot take the case of the petitioners any

further.

x. The decision relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Hina

Kausar Mohammad Riyaz (Supra) does not assist the

petitioners except in support of their submissions that they

were held eligible to appear for CTET and TAIT exams. To the

same effect is the decision in the case of Pandharinath Kanojia

(supra). On the contrary, in Kanojia’s case (supra) an

undertaking is directed to be furnished by the petitioners that

if in future they are convicted in the TET exam scam, they

would be removed from employment though statement was

made by the AGP that petitioners’ names do not figure in TET

exam results scam related to FIR.

xi. The decision in the case of Sagar Dattatray Chorghe (supra)

expressly in paragraph 18 records that candidates appearing in

TET exam results scam would not be ipso facto covered by the

view taken in that judgment. In Sagar Dattatray’s case (supra)

Page No.232
TET (GROUP).doc

the High Court followed decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust (supra)

giving relaxation for clearing TET exam to person covered by

said decision namely in-service on date of introduction of TET.

xii. The petitioners have also relied upon the Nidhi Kaim (supra)

and Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust (supra). We have already

considered the said decision in delivering the present judgment

as to its applicability in the light of the fact that petitioners

have admitted tampering and there is enough material to

cancel the results.

188. Consideration of decisions relied upon by the respondents :-

i. Mr. Hon, learned senior counsel for the respondents relied

upon decision in the cases of N. Tripura Sundaridevi (supra),

Madhulika Guruprasad Dahri (supra) and Smriti Madan

Kansagra (supra) for the proposition that appointments

obtained by fraud have to be viewed seriously and should be

followed by termination of such appointments. There can be

no dispute that fraud vitiates everything. In the instant case,

the respondents would be at liberty to take appropriate

proceedings as per the law against the teachers who are in

service on the basis of the malpractice and their role. Today,

this Court is not concerned with termination of teachers but

Page No.233
TET (GROUP).doc

only issue involved before us is whether the respondents were

justified in cancelling the results and imposing the penalty. We

have already expressed our views with regard to cancellation

of the result by upholding the same and by giving liberty to the

respondents for initiating penalty proceedings in accordance

with law. Therefore, to that extent, these judgements may not

be of any help. Furthermore, this Court cannot go into the

question of whether and to what extent the petitioners are

involved in the malpractice. However, the original results

obtained by tampering with marks certainly cannot be

sustained and which we have upheld.

ii. The second line of decisions relied upon by the respondents in

the cases of Dharampal Satyapal Limited (supra) , Sudhir

Kumar Singh (supra) and M. Bhaskaran (supra) deals with

natural justice. We have already given our views that in case of

malpractice the principle of natural justice cannot be followed

when it comes to cancellation of the results of tainted

candidates in mass. However, these decisions cannot be of any

assistance to the respondents for justifying permanently

debarring the candidates without giving hearing. None of these

decisions lays down the law that such a punishment can be

imposed without complying with the principle of natural

Page No.234
TET (GROUP).doc

justice. Therefore, to that extent, these decisions cannot be of

any assistance when it comes to justification for imposing

punishment / penalty contrary to the principles of natural

justice.

iii. The decision in the case of Association of Medical

Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents (supra) would not be

applicable since we have already held that the authority who

had issued certificate has the power to cancel the same and

further, we have also observed that impugned action has been

exercised in accordance with powers conferred by the 1998

Act. However, if the submission of the petitioners are to be

accepted that there is no Act which empowers the respondents

to take the impugned action then certainly Article 162 of the

Constitution of India would come to the rescue of the State for

justifying the impugned action.

iv. The decision in the case of Ashok Sadarangani (supra) relied

upon by the respondents with regard to the effect of the

decision in the case of Nidhi Kaim (supra) being referred to a

Larger Bench is pending supports the submission made by the

respondents that pending reference it does not lose its

precedential value. In the case of Nidhi Kaim (supra) only

difference of opinion between learned two Judges was with

Page No.235
TET (GROUP).doc

respect to the consequence to follow after having agreed to a

conclusion that the degrees were obtained by malpractice.

However, there was no difference of opinion on merits with

regard to malpractice having practiced by the candidates.

Therefore, the ratio of the decision in the case of Nidhi Kaim

(supra) rendered by the learned two Judges of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court is a binding precedent. We have upheld the

cancellation of results. However, with respect to penalty since

we have set aside on the ground of natural justice, we do not

express any opinion on the said issue. In any case, the

reference to larger Bench has also been answered in 2017 itself

and the Hon’ble Supreme Court refused to grant relief under

Article 142 of the Constitution of India and cancelled the

degrees obtained by the doctors.

v. The decision in the case of Central Information Commission

(supra) supports the submission made by the respondents with

regard to the power of superintendence direction and

management conferred on the State and the Council by the

Act. In our view, on the basis of Sections 14, 18, 23 and 26 of

the 1998 Act, the State and the Council have enough powers

which has been rightly exercised while passing the impugned

order/ communication.

Page No.236
TET (GROUP).doc

vi. The decision in the case of Mahatma Gandhi Commissioner

(supra) relied upon by the respondents does support their

submission that if the source exist but same is not mentioned

in the impugned order or communication or wrongly

mentioned then the order cannot be vitiated and we have

come to a conclusion that powers to cancel the results can be

traced to 1998 Act.

vii. Mr. Nikam, advocate for respondent-Council has relied upon

various decision. However, the decisions in the case of Feyaz

Ahmed Malik & Ors. (supra), Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai (supra)

and Biswa Ranjan Sahoo (supra) supports cancellation of

results without hearing in case of mass malpractice and non-

interference by Court in such matters. Other decisions are

distinguishable on facts and do not deal with punishment

without hearing.

189. Before parting, we may observe that such a situation of

malpractices in examination for getting admission in the educational

institutes, securing jobs etc. arises for various reasons. The

competition is so fierce that for few opportunities, number of people

chasing are in mass. The seats available in the education institutes

are few compared to demand, unemployment is high, etc. People to

get admission and jobs go to any extent but unfair means adopted

Page No.237
TET (GROUP).doc

does not justify the end though this Court is quite conscious about

the situation prevailing around where limited resources are chased by

unlimited individuals. There is a need for introspection amongst all

the stakeholders of this country for rectifying this situation to avoid

any major catastrophe which would hamper the standard of our great

institutions and also to create more opportunities for the youth so

that the talent is used for nation building to make Vikasit Bharat and

not for indulging in malpractices.

190. We end by reminding ourself of a letter from Abraham

Lincoln to his son’s teacher which reflects true qualities a teacher

should embrace while teaching young children :-

My son starts school today. … … …

So dear Teacher, will you please take him by his hand and
teach him things he will have to know, teaching him – but
gently, if you can. Teach him that for every enemy, there is a
friend. He will have to know that all men are not just, that all
men are not true. But … … ....

Teach him if you can that 10 cents earned is of far more value
than a dollar found. In school, teacher, it is far more
honorable to fail than to cheat. Teach him to learn how to
gracefully lose, and enjoy winning when he does win.

Teach him to be gentle with people, tough with tough people.
Steer him away from envy if you can and teach him the secret
of quiet laughter. Teach him if you can – how to laugh when
he is sad, teach him there is no shame in tears. Teach him
there can be glory in failure and despair in success. Teach him
to scoff at cynics.

Teach him if you can the wonders of books, but also give time

Page No.238
TET (GROUP).doc

to ponder the extreme mystery of birds in the sky, bees in the
sun and flowers on a green hill. Teach him to have faith in his
own ideas, even if every one tell him they are wrong.

Try to give my son the strength not to follow the crowd when
everyone else is doing it. Teach him to listen to every one, but
teach him also to filters all that he hears on a screen of truth
and take only the good that comes through.

Teach him to sell his talents and brains to the highest bidder
but never to put a price tag on his heart and soul. Let him
have the courage to be impatient, let him have the patient to
be brave. Teach him to have sublime faith in himself, because
then he will always have sublime faith in mankind, in God.

This is the order, teacher but see what best you can do.
He is such a nice little boy and he is my son.

191. In view of above, we pass following order :-

ORDER

(i) Action of respondents to cancel results of TET – 2018 and

TET – 2019 exams of the petitioners is upheld;

(ii) Action of respondents to debar petitioners permanently

from appearing in TET exams is set-aside on the ground of

breach of natural justice and on that count being

unreasonable.

(iii) However, respondents are at liberty to initiate fresh action

against all petitioners for imposing punishment / penalty

after complying with principles of natural justice and in

accordance with law. Such action, if taken, to be completed

on or before 31 December 2027 ;

Page No.239
TET (GROUP).doc

(iv) Writ Petition Nos.10879 of 2022, 9512 of 2022 and 9760 of

2023 are dismissed for suppression of material facts.

Further, the Council and the State are directed to identify

the candidates whose statements were recorded by the

police prior to the date of the impugned order dated 3

August 2022 and who have filed the petitions but have not

disclosed the said fact. Insofar as these candidates are

concerned, they would not be entitled to any benefit under

this order. The impugned order dated 3 August 2022

passed against them are confirmed in toto.

(v) Petitioners who are in-service on date of introduction of

TET and who wish to clear TET exam may do so in

accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case of Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust and others

(supra) dated 29 May 2026;

(vi) Order freezing salary and Shalarth ID of the teachers in-

service on the date of TET being made compulsory to

continue and if these teachers do not clear TET exams as

per timeline granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Anjuman’s case (supra), then their services may be

terminated. Inquiry against these teachers to be initiated

and completed on or before 31 December 2027, in

Page No.240
TET (GROUP).doc

accordance with applicable law as per the terms and

conditions of service. Respondents to intimate the same to

the employers of these petitioners of the present order.

(vii) If petitioners have cleared other exams like CTET, TAIT, etc.

to qualify as teacher then cancellation of TET – 2018 and

TET – 2019 results will not come in their way in continuing

with the job of teaching but the penal action, if the State

initiates, would not be protected and said action can go on.

However, if clearing TET exam is pre-condition for

acquiring another qualification then the present decision

will not be applicable.

(viii)The candidates who were recruited after the introduction

of TET and whose performance has been cancelled by the

impugned order are not covered by the extension of time

granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust and others (supra).

However, since they were protected by interim orders

passed by this Court, the said protection will continue for a

period of 8 weeks from today.

(ix) All contentions of all the parties are kept open insofar as

penalty / punishment proceedings are concerned, if

initiated in future and merely because cancellation of result

Page No.241
TET (GROUP).doc

is upheld, same would not come in the way of the

petitioners and the respondents in the adjudication of the

penalty proceedings.

(x) It is made clear that present judgment and order is

restricted to only those candidates who have challenged the

action before the Court and not to those who have accepted

the orders of the respondents.

192. All petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.

193. Rule is made absolute in above terms.

194. All pending Civil Applications, if any, are disposed of.

[JITENDRA JAIN] [KISHORE C. SANT]
JUDGE JUDGE

Jhs / Sayyed

Page No.242

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…