22-WP-16791-2024(C).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 16791 OF 2024 Iranna Gurunath Sutar ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 16789 OF 2024 Gurushant Suresh Ghongade ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents —————— Mr. Narendra Bandiwadekar a/w Mr. Sagar Mane, Mr. Rushikesh D. Jagdale, Ms. Neha Farakate for the Petitioners. Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State. —————— CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH & NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 02, 2026. P. C. : 1. By the present Petitions, the challenge is to the order dated 6th July, 2021, by which the Deputy Director of Education refused the Petitioners’ application for inclusion of their names in the Shalarth Pranali and issuance of Shalarth ID, though approval was granted, on the ground that the Petitioners have not acquired TET qualification. Jamadar-SL 1 of 4 2026:BHC-KOL:8440-DB 22-WP-16791-2024(C).doc 2. Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners, would rely on the decision in the case of Paramvir Abdul Hamid Social Welfare Association, Tunki (Bk.) and Others Vs. The Deputy Director of Education and Another1, and would submit that in identical situation where the Petitioner No.1 therein was a minority institution, this Court has considered the pendency of the issue before the Hon’ble Apex Court and has directed inclusion of the Petitioner’s name in Shalarth ID by holding that the rejection of approval on the ground of non-acquisition of TET qualification is contrary to the judicial decisions as well as the communication issued by the Director of Education (Primary). 3. He would further submit that in respect of Writ Petition No. 16791 of 2024, the Petitioner has acquired CTET qualification in August, 2023, though not required in view of the institution being a minority institution. 4. Both Petitions raise the common issue as regards the rejection of the Petitioners’ application for inclusion of the names of the Petitioners in the Shalarth Pranali and issuance of Shalarth ID. It is not disputed that the Petitioners are employed by the minority institution and came to be appointed as Assistant Teachers after following due process of law and their appointments were also approved. After the minority institution 1 In Writ Petition No.7566 of 2025 decided on 1st April, 2026. Jamadar-SL 2 of 4 22-WP-16791-2024(C).doc became 20% aided, the application was made for inclusion of the Petitioners’ names in the Shalarth Pranali and issuance of Shalarth ID, which came to be rejected only on the ground of non-acquisition of TET qualification. 5. The issue is already covered by the decision in the case of Anjuman Ishaat-E-Talim Trust Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others2, where the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in paragraph 214, which reads as under: “214. Per the detailed discussions above and resting on the same, we hold that the provisions of the RTE Act have to be complied with by all schools as defined in Section 2(n) of the RTE Act except the schools established and administered by the minority – whether religious or linguistic – till such time the reference is decided and subject to the answers to the questions formulated above under section VII. Logically, it would follow that in-service teachers (irrespective of the length of their service) would also be required to qualify the TET to continue in service." 6. The issue was also considered in the decision of Paramvir Abdul Hamid Social Welfare Association Tunki (Bk.) (supra) where the Hon’ble Division Bench also considered the communication issued by the Director of Education (Primary) that the schools run by the minority institutions have approached the Hon’ble Apex Court in respect of the compulsory acquisition of TET, and therefore, the condition is relaxed for the time being. As held by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Paramvir Abdul Hamid Social Welfare Association, Tunki (Bk.) (supra), till the decision of reference in respect of the issue of applicability of 2 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 861 Jamadar-SL 3 of 4 22-WP-16791-2024(C).doc TET examination, the rejection of approval is contrary to the judicial pronouncement as well as the communications issued by the Director of Education (Primary). 7. In light of the undisputed position, the impugned order rejecting the application only on the ground of non-acquisition of TET in respect of a minority institution is clearly unsustainable and is hereby quashed and set aside. 8. The Writ Petitions are allowed in terms of prayer Clauses (b) and (c), which read as under: “b] By a suitable writ, order or direction, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 6.7.2021 issued by the Respondent No. 2, and accordingly the Respondent No. 2 may be directed to enter the name of the Petitioner No. 1 in Shalartha Pranali and to grant him Shalartha I.D. as Assistant Teacher [20% aided] in the Respondent No. 5 School. c ] After the relief would be granted as prayed in prayer clause [b] above, that by a suitable writ, order or direction, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 3 to sanction and release the grant-in-aid for payment of monthly salary at 20% grant-in-aid to the Petitioner No. 1 as Assistant Teacher in the Respondent No. 5 School w.e.f. 1.3.2021, with all arrears and to continue to pay the same every month on regular basis.” 9. The Respondent No.2 is directed to enter the name of the Petitioner No.1 in both the Petitions in the Shalarth Pranali and grant Shalarth ID within a period of four weeks and release the grant-in-aid within a period of three weeks thereafter. 10. The Petitions are allowed and disposed of in the above terms. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.] Jamadar-SL 4 of 4