Isn't this very obvious? What kind of proof is expected for this kind of question?
The definition of measurability says a mapping $f: E \rightarrow F$ is said to be measurable relative to $\mathcal{E}$ and $\mathcal{F}$ if $f^{-1} B \in \mathcal{E}$ for every $B$ in $\mathcal{F}$.
So here, $f: E\rightarrow F$ is measurable relative to $\mathcal{E}$ and $\mathcal{F}$, so $f^{-1}B \in \mathcal{E}$ for every $B$ in $\mathcal{F}$ and $g: E \rightarrow G$ is measurable relative to $\mathcal{E}$ and $\mathcal{G}$ so $g^{-1}C \in \mathcal E$ for every C in $G$. Hence, $h^{-1}D = (f^{-1}D, g^{-1}D) \in \mathcal{E}$ for every D in $\mathcal{F} \times \mathcal{G}$.
It seems very wrong because I am just regurgitating the definitions.

While it is obvious that $h^{-1}[R\times S]=f^{-1}[R]\cap g^{-1}[S]\in\mathcal E$ for all $R\in\mathcal F$ and $S\in\mathcal G$, the proof must account for the fact that not all the sets of $\mathcal F\otimes\mathcal G$ are products of sets and, in point of fact, there aren't very explicit descriptions of a $\sigma$-algebra in terms of its generators.
The tool to use is the fact that if $\mathcal H$ is a $\sigma$-algebra on $H$ and $r:X\to H$ is a function, then $\{r^{-1}[K]\,:\, K\in \mathcal H\}$ is a $\sigma$-algebra as well.