In a significant ruling for educational standards, the Supreme Court of India has held that a candidate must possess the State Eligibility Test (SET) qualification in the “concerned subject” for appointment as a Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST). The Court clarified that even if statutory rules do not explicitly repeat the phrase “in the concerned subject” for the SET requirement, a purposive and contextual interpretation of the law—read alongside the examination scheme—mandates subject-specific eligibility.
The central legal question before the Court was whether Rule 6.2(24)(iii) of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules (KER) requires a SET qualification specifically in the subject of appointment (Economics, in this case) or if a SET qualification in any subject suffices.
A Bench comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi dismissed the appeals filed by Zubair P., affirming the Kerala High Court’s decision. The Court ruled that possession of a SET qualification in an unrelated subject does not satisfy the statutory eligibility criteria for a specialized teaching post.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Zubair P., entered service as an Upper Primary School Teacher in 2002 and was promoted to High School Teacher in 2004. On July 15, 2021, he was appointed as HSST (Economics) by the competent authority. While the appellant held a Master’s degree in Economics, his SET qualification was in Malayalam.
Respondent No. 4, a competing candidate, challenged the appointment, asserting she held the requisite SET in Economics. The respondent-authorities subsequently declined to approve the appellant’s appointment on June 18, 2022, on two grounds:
- Lack of SET qualification in Economics.
- Failure to meet the ten-year high school teaching experience requirement for exemption from SET under Rule 10(4) of Chapter XXXII (the appellant had served for 9 years, 10 months, and 14 days).
Both a Single Judge and a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala upheld the rejection, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Nikhil Goel, Senior Counsel, and Mr. Haris Beeran argued that Rule 6.2(24) of Chapter XXXII expressly requires Master’s and B.Ed. degrees to be in the “concerned subject” but omits this qualifier for the SET requirement in sub-clause (iii). They contended that the High Court impermissibly added words to a statutory provision and that SET should be viewed as a general benchmark of teaching aptitude rather than a subject-specific assessment.
For the State of Kerala and Respondent No. 4: Counsel for the State and Respondent No. 4 argued that the SET examination scheme, as detailed in its prospectus, includes a “Paper II” specifically testing the candidate’s subject of specialization at the Post Graduate level. They maintained that the legislature’s intent was to ensure academic standards at the Higher Secondary level, which requires specialized subject competence.
The Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court rejected the appellant’s literal interpretation, emphasizing that statutory provisions cannot be read in isolation. Citing Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. (1987) 1 SCC 424, the Court noted:
“Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual.”
The Bench observed that the SET is conducted subject-wise and includes a paper testing postgraduate-level expertise. Consequently, a candidate cannot qualify for SET without choosing a specific subject. On this basis, the Court held:
“Hence, when SET qualification is itself subject-specific, it is immaterial whether or not Rule 6.2(24)(iii) of Chapter XXXII of the Rules provides for SET ‘in the concerned subject’ or not.”
Regarding the academic impact, the Court remarked:
“To accept the interpretation of the appellant would result in a situation where a candidate tested for eligibility in an entirely unrelated discipline could claim appointment to teach another specialised subject and such an interpretation would defeat the very object of prescribing the SET qualification at the Higher Secondary level and would lead to manifestly absurd results.”
The Court also distinguished the Full Bench judgment in Manager, MPVHS School v. Girija (2003), noting it applied to High School Assistants under Chapter XXXI, whereas HSST appointments under Chapter XXXII involve a distinct cadre with higher academic standards.
Final Decision
The Court concluded that the appellant was not qualified for the post of HSST (Economics) and affirmed the eligibility of Respondent No. 4.
- SET Requirement: The Court held that SET must correspond to the subject of appointment.
- Exemption: The Court found the appellant ineligible for exemption under Rule 10(4) as he fell short of the mandatory ten-year service period.
- No Recovery: The Court clarified that no recovery of any excess amount paid to the appellant during his tenure shall be carried out.
- Timeline: The respondent-authorities were directed to issue necessary orders regarding Respondent No. 4’s appointment within two months.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Zubair P. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (@SLP (C) No. 17785 of 2024)
- Bench: Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
