STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. versus TUKARAM TRYAMBAK CHAUDHARI AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 835 · Decided: 20-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
A 
---1 .... 
v. 
TUKARAM TRY AMBAK CHAUDHARI AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 20, 2007 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
B 
Education/Educational Institutions: 
·Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981-Rule 6- c 
Graduate teachers having B.Ed. qualification are eligible to continue as 
trained teachers in primary schools-Resolution dated 4.Il.1979. 
Respondents were all graduate teachers having B.Ed. qualification and 
had been appointed to teach in Primary schools conducting classes upto the 
7th standar(,!. In most of the cases, approval was granted for their appointment D 
as Trained Teachers. Subsequently, however in 2001, they were all informed 
"t 
that they would be treated as untrained teachers and would be paid their 
salaries accordingly. Respondents filed writ petitions before High Court 
l 
contending that in terms of Government Resolution dated 26.10.1982, they 
were entitled to be appointed and continued as Trained teachers in the B.Ed. E 
scale. 
High Court allowed the writ petitions holding that teachers who possess 
B.A./B.Sc. and B.Ed. qualification are duly qualified and are eligible to continue 
as Trained Teachers. Hence these appeals. 
F 
-
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Though standards 5 to 7 were attached to both primary 
schools as well as secondary schools, these classes in fact, represented the 
middle schools for which different standards were being followed. [Para 20] G 
[844-B] 
Jayashree Su nil Chavan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2000) 3 Mah. 
,,..._ 
L.J. 605, referred to. 
1.2. Conscious of such disparity in respect of teachers who are similarly B 
835 
' t' 
836 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 2 S.C.R. 
p 
A situated but were treated differently on account of their being attached to . 
.-.~~ 
primary schools and/or secondary schools, the State Government resolved to 
eliminate such differences and to make provisions for trained graduate 
teachers to be upgraded to a higher scale to the extent of 25% of the posts. 
The Resolution dated 4.11.1979 consciously refers to in service graduate 
B primary teachers who were eligible for appointment to the posts in the 
increased pay-scale. In fact, one of the conditions for appointment of in service 
graduate primary teachers to the converted post carrying the higher pay-scale 
was that such teacher should have obtained a degree in Arts or Science and 
had also obtained a degree in education namely, B.Ed. While adopting the 
"t 
c 
aforesaid Resolution, the Government was, therefore, fully aware of the fact 
there were graduate teachers teaching in standards 5 to 7 in the primary 
schools. (Para 21) (844-C-Ff 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 863 of2007. 
-
D 
From the common Judgment and final Order dated 6.5.2004 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition Nos. 4632/99, 3323 3340, 3553, 
3564/02,4325/99,4645/99,5157,5160,5166,5600,5684,5685,5824,5963,6150/ 
99, 6472/00, 6481, 6605/99, 6695/00 and 8382/03. 
·• 
S.K. Dholakia, Ravindra Keshvrao Adsure for the Appellants. 
E 
R.S. Apte, Vinay Navare, Mayuresh Lagu, Naresh Kumar, Makrand D. 
Adkar, Vijay Kumar and Vishwajit Singh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
ALTAMAS KABIR,J. I. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions. 
;,.. 
2. The private respondents in all these special leave petitions had filed 
several writ petitions in the Bombay High Court questioning the decision of 
the authorities to treat them as Untrained Teachers although they were all 
graduate teachers having B.Ed. qualification and approval having been granted 
G for their appointment as trained teachers. According to the said respondents, 
they had all been appointed as Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools which 
conducted classes up to the 7th standard, from about the year 1988 onwards. 
It is only after a decision was taken to treat them as untrained teachers, 
4 
despite being fully trained and qualified, that they were compelled to move 
H the several writ petitions which were all allowed by a common judgment of 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA>: TUKARAM TRYAMBAK Cll>\UDHARI [AL TAMAS KABiR, !.] 
837 
the Bombay High Court dated 6th May, 2004. 
A 
3. The case of the writ petitioners before the Bombay High Court was 
that they were all graduate teachers having B.Ed. qualification and that they 
had been appointed to teach in Primary Schools conducting classes up to the 
7th standard. In most 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.