NIVRUTI RAMKRUSHNA SAHANE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by impugned communication dated 17.03.2016, issued by respondent no.3 i.e. The Regional Deputy Commissioner, Social Welfare Office, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, thereby refusing proposal dated 24.07.2015, seeking approval to appointment of the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak on the ground that the petitioner has not passed TET Examination.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent no.5 institution is a 'minority institution'. He further submits that respondent no.3 turned down the proposal mainly on the ground that the petitioner has not cleared the Teachers Eligibility Test. The aforesaid condition in respect of passing Teachers Eligibility Test is pursuant to the directives issued under the provisions of the Right to Education Act. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (R)and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. 2014 AIR SCW 2859, after considering the provisions of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India vis-a- vis provisions under the Right of Children to free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 [for short 'Act of 2009'], has taken a view that that, Act of 2009, in so far as it applies to 'minority schools, aided or unaided, covered under clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India is, ultra vires the Constitution. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the impugned communication deserves to be quashed and set aside and directions may be issued to Respondent No.3, to consider the case of the petitioner, for grant of approval afresh.