Education Law – Teachers’ Eligibility Test (TET) – Requirement of qualification – Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, S. 23(1), (2) (as amended by Act 12 of 2017) – National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Notification dated 23-8-2010 – Minimum qualifications for appointment as teacher – Applicability to teachers appointed prior to passing of TET – Scope of 2017 amendment extending time for acquiring qualification.
Held, appellants were appointed as Assistant Teachers in 2012, before clearing TET (first TET in U.P. held 13-11-2011). Appellant No.1 cleared TET on 25-11-2011 and Appellant No.2 on 24-5-2014. Their services were terminated on 12-7-2018 for want of TET qualification at the time of appointment. By virtue of the second proviso to S. 23(2) inserted by Amendment Act 12 of 2017 (effective 9-8-2017), all teachers appointed or in position as on 31-3-2015 were permitted to acquire the minimum qualification within four years i.e. up to 31-3-2019. Since the appellants had acquired the TET qualification by 2014, they were not unqualified on the date of termination. Termination, therefore, unsustainable.
Orders of Single Judge (12-3-2024) and Division Bench (1-5-2024) of Allahabad High Court affirming termination, set aside. Appellants directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and consequential benefits (excluding back wages).
— Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, Ss. 23(1), (2); NCTE Notification, 23-8-2010; Amending Act 12 of 2017, S. 23 (as amended).
Held:
The Supreme Court held that:
Under Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) was empowered to prescribe the minimum qualifications for appointment as a teacher. The notification dated 23 August 2010 required passing the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) as a minimum qualification.
The appellants were appointed as Assistant Teachers on 17 March 2012, though they had not qualified TET at the time. Appellant No.1 cleared TET on 25 November 2011 and Appellant No.2 on 24 May 2014.
By the 2017 amendment (effective 9 August 2017), the second proviso to Section 23(2) of the RTE Act allowed every teacher appointed or in position as on 31 March 2015, who did not possess the minimum qualifications, to acquire them within four years from commencement of the amendment (i.e., by 31 March 2019).
Therefore, on the date of their termination (12 July 2018), both appellants had already acquired TET qualification within the statutory grace period. The basis of termination — non-possession of TET at appointment — was thus legally unsustainable.
The Court found that the High Court erred in upholding the termination despite recording that the appellants had qualified TET by 2014. No other ground was cited for their removal.
Result
Appeal allowed.
Orders of the Division Bench (1 May 2024) and Single Judge (12 March 2024) of Allahabad High Court quashed and set aside.
Termination order dated 12 July 2018 quashed.
Respondents directed to reinstate appellants forthwith to the post of Assistant Teachers in Jwala Prasad Tiwari Junior High School, Bhauti, Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
No back wages but continuity of service and consequential benefits (including seniority) granted.2025 INSC 1273
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 22164 of 2024)
UMA KANT AND ANOTHER …APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, CJI
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal challenges the judgment and final
order dated 1st May 2024 passed by a Division Bench of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad1, whereby the intracourt2 appeal filed by the appellants herein was dismissed and
the judgment and order dated 12th March 2024 passed by a
learned Single Judge of the High Court, dismissing the Writ
Petition3 filed by the appellants, was affirmed.
1 Hereinafter, “High Court”.
2 Special Appeal No. 441 of 224.
3 Writ – A No. – 17951 of 2018.
2
3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as
under.
3.1. By a notification dated 23rd August 2010, the National
Council for Teacher Education,4 in exercise of the powers
conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009,
5 laid
down minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for
appointment as a teacher in Class I to VIII in a “school”
referred to in clause (n) of Section 2 of the RTE Act, with effect
from the date of the notification. It can be seen that the
requirement to pass the Teacher Eligibility Test,6 to be
conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with
the guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose, was added
as a minimum qualification.
3.2. On 25th June 2011, the management of one Jwala Prasad
Tiwari Junior High School, Bhauti, Kanpur Nagar, Uttar
Pradesh,7 which is a recognized and aided junior high school,
initiated proceedings to fill four posts of Assistant Teachers in
4 Hereinafter, “NCTE”.
5 Hereinafter, “RTE Act”.
6 Hereinafter, “TET”.
7 Hereinafter, “JPT Junior High School”.
3
JPT Junior High School with the permission of the Basic
Shiksha Adhikari, Kanpur Nagar District8.
3.3. An advertisement for the aforesaid four posts of Assistant
Teachers was issued on 3rd July 2011 and the last date for
submission of applications was 16th July 2011. The appellants
herein applied for the same.
3.4. On 13th November 2011, TET examination was held for
the first time in the State of Uttar Pradesh and on 25th
November 2011, appellant No. 2 cleared the TET.
3.5. On 13th March 2012, the BSA approved the selection of
the appellants by way of an appointment letter. As a result,
the appellants joined the post of Assistant Teacher on 17th
March 2012.
3.6. On 24th May 2014, appellant No. 1 also cleared the TET.
3.7. By way of an amendment dated 9th August 2017 to
Section 23 of the RTE Act, it was provided that every teacher,
appointed or in position as on 31st March 2015, who does not
possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub8 Hereinafter, “BSA”.
4
section (1) shall acquire such minimum qualifications within
a period of four years from the date of the said amendment.
3.8. On 12th July 2018, the services of the appellants were
terminated by the BSA on the ground that they did not have
TET qualification at the time of their appointment.
3.9. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants along with two others
filed a Writ Petition before the High Court inter-alia seeking
quashing of the aforesaid order/communication passed by the
BSA.
3.10. Vide judgment and final order dated 12th March
2024, a learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the
Writ Petition.
3.11. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioners before the
High Court filed an intra-court appeal and the same was also
dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court vide
impugned judgement and final order dated 1st May 2024.
3.12. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and
final order, two of the writ petitioners before the High Court
have filed the present appeal by way of special leave.
5
4. We have heard Shri Amit Anand Tiwari, learned Senior
Counsel for the appellants and Shri Ankit Goel, learned
counsel for the respondent-State.
5. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf
of the appellants that the first TET was conducted by the
respondent-State on 13th November 2011 and the appellants
passed the same in 2011 and 2014. It is further submitted
that since the appellants qualified TET within the extended
time prescribed by the RTE Act, they should not be terminated
for non-possession of TET certificate at the time of their
appointment and that they should be reinstated.
6. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
respondent-State that as per the mandate of the RTE Act, the
appellants ought to have obtained TET certificate at the time
of their appointment. It is, however, fairly stated by the learned
counsel for the respondent-State that subsequent to their
appointment, they obtained TET certificate by 2014.
7. Section 23 of the RTE Act provides qualifications for
appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers.
In exercise of the powers thereof, the NCTE, being the
concerned academic authority authorised by the Central
6
Government, by way of a notification dated 23rd August 2010
prescribed passing the TET as one of the minimum
qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a
teacher in Class I to VIII in a “school” referred to in clause (n)
of Section 2 of the RTE Act.
8. By an amendment dated 9th August 2017, the second
proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the RTE Act was
added and it provides that every teacher appointed or in
position as on 31st March 2015, who does not possess
minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1)
shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of
four years from the date of commencement of the amendment.
9. In the present case, the appellants applied for the post of
Assistant Teacher in the JPT Junior High School pursuant to
the advertisement dated 3rd July 2011, with the last date for
submission of applications being 16th July 2011. The BSA
approved the selection of the appellants on 13th March 2012,
with them joining the post on 17th March 2012. Further, the
TET was held for the first time in the State of Uttar Pradesh on
13th November 2011 and appellant No. 1 cleared TET on 25th
7
November 2011, while appellant No. 2 cleared TET on 24th May
2014.
10. It can thus be seen that the appellants had acquired the
minimum qualifications, including TET, by 24th March 2014,
while the second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the
RTE Act provides that the unqualified teachers appointed/inposition as on 31st March 2015 shall acquire minimum
qualifications before 31st March 2019. We, therefore, fail to see
as to how the appellants can be said to be unqualified on the
date of their termination i.e., 12th July 2018, when
undisputedly they had already qualified the TET by 24th March
2014.
11. Pertinently, both the learned Single Judge and the
Division Bench of the High Court recorded that the appellants
had qualified TET by 2014. However, they proceeded on the
premise that since the appellants did not possess TET passcertificate at the time of their appointment, so their
termination, after working for 6 years, need not be interfered
with.
12. A perusal of the order/communication dated 12th July
2018 passed by the BSA would, however, show that apart from
8
finding the appellants to have not qualified the TET, there is
no other basis on which the appointment of the appellants was
terminated. The learned counsel for respondent-State has also
not stated any other ground on the basis of which the
candidature of the appellants was found to be unsuitable for
the post of Assistant Teacher.
13. In that view of the matter, we find that the noninterference by the learned Single Judge of the High Court and
the same being affirmed by the Division Bench of the High
Court is erroneous as the requirement to qualify TET was to
be complied with by 31st March 2019, by when the appellants
had undisputedly passed the TET.
14. We, therefore, allow the present appeal by passing the
following order:
(i) The judgment and final order passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court in Special Appeal No. – 441
of 2024 is quashed and set aside;
(ii) The judgment and final order passed by the Single
Judge of High Court in Writ – A No. – 17951 of 2018
dated 12th March 2024 is quashed and set aside;
9
(iii) The order/communication recalling the selection of
the appellants on the posts of Assistant Teachers
dated 12th July 2018 is quashed and set aside;
(iv) The Writ Petition filed by the appellants before the
High Court is disposed of with a direction to the
respondents to forthwith reinstate the appellants to
the post of Assistant Teacher in the Jwala Prasad
Tiwari Junior High School, Bhauti, Kanpur Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh. We clarify that though the appellants
would not be entitled to back-wages, they shall be
reinstated with continuity of service and all other
consequential benefits, including seniority, etc.
15. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
…………..............................CJI
(B.R. GAVAI)
.............................................J
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 31, 2025.
