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