The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment dated October 31, 2025, has set aside the termination of two Assistant Teachers from Uttar Pradesh, holding that their subsequent acquisition of the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualification before the statutory deadline of March 31, 2019, protected their services. The bench, comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, quashed the orders of the Allahabad High Court that had upheld their 2018 termination for not possessing the TET certificate at the time of their appointment in 2012.
The appeal challenged a final order dated May 1, 2024, from a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which had dismissed an intra-court appeal. This, in turn, had affirmed a learned Single Judge’s order dated March 12, 2024, dismissing the appellants’ Writ Petition (Writ – A No. 17951 of 2018).
Background of the Case
The case originates from a notification dated August 23, 2010, by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), which, under Section 23(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), mandated passing the TET as a minimum qualification for teachers in Class I to VIII.
On June 25, 2011, the management of Jwala Prasad Tiwari Junior High School, Kanpur Nagar, initiated proceedings to fill four posts of Assistant Teachers with permission from the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA). An advertisement was issued on July 3, 2011, with a last application date of July 16, 2011, to which the appellants, Uma Kant and another, applied.
The first TET examination in Uttar Pradesh was held on November 13, 2011. Appellant No. 2 cleared the TET on November 25, 2011.
On March 13, 2012, the BSA approved the selection of the appellants, who subsequently joined their posts as Assistant Teachers on March 17, 2012. Appellant No. 1 later cleared the TET on May 24, 2014.
An amendment to Section 23 of the RTE Act on August 9, 2017, provided that “every teacher, appointed or in position as on 31st March 2015, who does not possess minimum qualifications… shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of four years” from the date of the amendment (i.e., by March 31, 2019).
Despite this, on July 12, 2018, the BSA terminated the appellants’ services on the ground that they did not possess the TET qualification at the time of their appointment. The appellants challenged this termination, but their writ petition and subsequent special appeal were dismissed by the Allahabad High Court.
Arguments Presented
Shri Amit Anand Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the first TET was conducted only on November 13, 2011. He argued that since the appellants qualified the TET in 2011 and 2014, respectively, they had acquired the qualification within the extended time prescribed by the 2017 amendment to the RTE Act and should be reinstated.
Shri Ankit Goel, learned counsel for the respondent-State, submitted that the appellants were required to have the TET certificate at the time of their appointment. However, the judgment noted that the counsel “fairly stated… that subsequent to their appointment, they obtained TET certificate by 2014.”
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court bench analyzed the timeline of the appellants’ appointments against the backdrop of the RTE Act and its 2017 amendment.
The Court identified the second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the RTE Act, added by the amendment dated August 9, 2017, as the crucial provision. This proviso allowed teachers who were “appointed or in position as on 31st March 2015” and lacked minimum qualifications, a period of four years (until March 31, 2019) to acquire them.
The Court observed that the appellants were in position as of March 31, 2015, and had acquired the TET qualification by May 2014 (Appellant No. 2 in 2011, Appellant No. 1 in 2014).
In Paragraph 10, the judgment states: “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.”
The bench criticized the High Court’s reasoning, noting in Paragraph 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 pass-certificate at the time of their appointment, so their termination, after working for 6 years, need not be interfered with.”
The Supreme Court found this non-interference to be “erroneous.” It further noted that the termination order dated July 12, 2018, cited no other basis for termination apart from the lack of TET qualification at the time of appointment.
The Court concluded in Paragraph 13: “…the requirement to qualify TET was to be complied with by 31st March 2019, by when the appellants had undisputedly passed the TET.”
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and passed the following orders:
- The judgment and final order of the Division Bench (Special Appeal No. 441 of 2024) and the Single Judge (Writ – A No. 17951 of 2018) were quashed and set aside.
- The termination order/communication dated July 12, 2018, was quashed and set aside.
- The respondents were directed to “forthwith reinstate the appellants to the post of Assistant Teacher.”
- The Court clarified that while 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.”
