(1) 29-WP-191-2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 191 OF 2020 Ku. Kirti Tulshidas Wairagade And Another VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 32 OF 2020 Ku. Chetna Kailas Kamble VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 38 OF 2020 Ku. Snehal Vitthalrao Thakre VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 277 OF 2020 Kishor Upasha Madavi And Another VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1913 OF 2019 Nitin Ambadasji Jadhao And Others VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Ors WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2419 OF 2019 Rahul Rajkumar Walsinge And Others VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Ors Kartikeya 2026:BHC-NAG:12695-DB (2) 29-WP-191-2020 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2418 OF 2019 Maroti Kishan Jadhav And Others VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. Of School Education And Sports, Mumbai And Others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2417 OF 2019 Rajesh S/o Sheshrao Nagmote And Others VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Ors WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2889 OF 2019 Sunil Manohar Padade And Others VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3345 OF 2019 Bhimrao Dhanraj Shindemeshram And Others VERSUS State Of Maharashtra And Ors. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3105 OF 2019 Ku. Dipali Shalikram Uikey VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Ors WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3104 OF 2019 Raju Mahadeorao Mohod And Another VERSUS Kartikeya (3) 29-WP-191-2020 The State Of Maharashtra And Ors WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3286 OF 2019 Shivram Ambadas Gomase VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7348 OF 2019 Nilima Hemraj Nimkar And Others VERSUS State Of Maharashtra And Others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4269 OF 2019 Ku. Priti D/o Vasantrao Awachar (Smt. Priti W/o Prashant Chawre) And Another VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7358 OF 2018 Rajmal S/o Ranjit Ghoti And Others VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Ors WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8119 OF 2019 Ku. Dharati Krushnarao Deshmukh (Mrs. Dharati Sunil Uikey) VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- Kartikeya (4) 29-WP-191-2020 Mr. B.G. Kulkarni, Mr. M.J. Jadhao and Mr. N.T. Gwalwansh, Advocate for the Petitioners in respective Petitions. Mr. Purushottam Patil, Mr. S.R. Mukesh, Mr. Shaikh Majid, Mr. P.S. Wathore, Mr. H.A. Khedikar, Mr. V.P.. Maldhure, Mr. B.P. Maldure and Advocate for the Respondent (s) in respective Petitions Mr. N.R. Patil, AGP, for the Respondent-State in all the petitions. CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 24, 2026. 1. Heard. 2. There is no dispute that the substantive prayer is to issue directions to Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to frame the syllabus for the TET examination based upon the curriculum of Standards 1 to 8 and then to conduct the TET examination. 3. Having heard the parties for some time, it appears that the syllabus for the TET examination based upon the curriculum of Standards 1 to 8 was in place since the year 2013. The petitioners appeared in several such examinations before filing the petition. They had not raised any grievance about the syllabus. 4. The counsel for the respondents submits that for the first time the grievance is raised through these petitions because the respondents issued communication saying that if the petitioners fail to pass the TET examination before 31.03.2020, their services shall stand terminated. 5. Thus, it appears that the grievance is raised as an afterthought. That apart, we are now informed that the Kartikeya (5) 29-WP-191-2020 comprehensive syllabus has been prescribed in June 2026, which status is not disputed by the counsel appearing for the petitioners, though he submits that he could not lay hands to the said syllabus. 6. So far as the issue of passing TET examination is concerned, it has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of U.P. v. Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust & Ors., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 998. 7. We are informed that the time to pass the TET examination has been now extended up to 31.08.2028. Thus, what is left is the issue of framing the syllabus. 8. We find that the syllabus was already in place. That apart, the exhaustive and comprehensive syllabus has been framed in June 2026. 9. That being so, the grievance made in the petitions stands redressed. The petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kartikeya