Supreme Court : Teachers Qualifying TET Within Extended RTE Deadline Cannot Be Dismissed for Not Having It at Appointment
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that teachers who acquired the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualification within the period extended under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) cannot be terminated merely because they lacked it at the time of appointment. The Bench set aside the Allahabad High Court’s decision and directed that two Assistant Teachers, whose services were ended on this ground, be reinstated. Since both teachers had obtained the qualification before the prescribed deadline, the Court directed their reinstatement with continuity of service and other consequential benefits, though without back wages.
The dispute arose from the termination of two Assistant Teachers appointed in Jwala Prasad Tiwari Junior High School, a recognized and aided institution in Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. The school management initiated recruitment proceedings in June 2011 after obtaining permission from the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA) and issued an advertisement on 3 July 2011 to fill four posts of Assistant Teachers. The appellants applied and were selected, with their appointments approved by the BSA on 13 March 2012. They assumed charge on 17 March 2012.
The first Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) in the State was conducted on 13 November 2011, subsequent to the closing date for applications. Appellant No. 2 cleared the examination on 25 November 2011, while Appellant No. 1 passed it on 24 May 2014. An amendment to Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) was introduced on 9 August 2017, allowing teachers appointed or in position as on 31 March 2015 to obtain the minimum qualifications within four years from the commencement of the amendment.
On 12 July 2018, the BSA terminated the appellants’ services on the ground that they had not possessed TET qualification at the time of appointment. The appellants filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, which was dismissed, followed by an unsuccessful intra-court appeal. Before the Supreme Court, they contended that they had qualified within the time allowed under the RTE Act, whereas the State argued that possession of TET qualification was mandatory at the time of appointment.
The Court observed that “Section 23 of the RTE Act provides qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers.” It recorded that the National Council for Teacher Education, through its notification dated 23 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.”
The Bench noted that by the amendment dated 9 August 2017, “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.”
It further recorded that “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.” It added that “the BSA approved the selection of the appellants on 13th March 2012, with them joining the post on 17th March 2012.”
The Court stated that “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 November 2011, while appellant No. 2 cleared TET on 24th May 2014.” It observed, “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/in-position as on 31st March 2015 shall acquire minimum qualifications before 31st March 2019.”
The Bench recorded, “We 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.” It noted that “both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court recorded that the appellants had qualified TET by 2014” but still upheld the termination.
The Court further observed that “apart from finding the appellants to have not qualified the TET, there is no other basis on which the appointment of the appellants was terminated.” It concluded, “The non-interference 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.”
The Court directed, “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. 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. The order/communication recalling the selection of the appellants on the posts of Assistant Teachers dated 12th July 2018 is quashed and set aside. 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. They shall be reinstated with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits, including seniority, etc., but shall not be entitled to back-wages.”
Case Title: Uma Kant and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1273
Case No.: Civil Appeal (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 22164 of 2024)
Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran
