Teachers Who Secured TET Within Statutory Extension Are Entitled To Reinstatement Despite Lacking Certificate At Appointment

A bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal challenging an Allahabad High Court judgment that had dismissed a writ petition and an intra‑court appeal concerning termination of two assistant teachers for allegedly not possessing the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualification at the time of their appointment.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court orders and the Basic Shiksha Adhikari’s (BSA) July 12, 2018 order recalling the selections, and directed immediate reinstatement of the appellants with continuity of service and consequential benefits, while denying back‑wages. The Court noted that the statutory amendment to Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act required teachers in post as on March 31, 2015 to acquire minimum qualifications “within a period of four years,” and that the appellants had in fact qualified the TET well before the deadline. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further directed relief, stating 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."

Background The dispute arose from an NCTE notification dated August 23, 2010 that made passing the TET one of the minimum qualifications for appointment as a teacher for Classes I–VIII under Section 23 of the RTE Act. The Jwala Prasad Tiwari Junior High School advertised four Assistant Teacher posts on July 3, 2011. The appellants applied, were selected with BSA approval on March 13, 2012, and joined on March 17, 2012. The TET was first conducted in Uttar Pradesh on November 13, 2011; appellant No. 1 cleared TET on November 25, 2011 and appellant No. 2 on May 24, 2014.

An amendment to Section 23 on August 9, 2017 introduced a proviso requiring teachers appointed or in position as on March 31, 2015 to acquire minimum qualifications within four years (i.e., by March 31, 2019). Despite this, the BSA terminated the appellants’ services on July 12, 2018 on the stated ground that they did not possess the TET certificate at the time of appointment. The appellants challenged the termination by filing a writ petition; a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition on March 12, 2024, and a Division Bench dismissed the intra‑court appeal on May 1, 2024.

Before the Supreme Court, appellants’ counsel argued that both had secured TET qualification within the statutory window and therefore could not be validly terminated. The State contended that TET certification was a pre‑appointment requirement; however, it was conceded that both appellants had subsequently obtained TET certificates, the latest by 2014. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had recorded the appellants’ later qualifications yet proceeded on the premise that absence of a pass certificate at appointment justified termination. Finding that approach erroneous given the statutory timeline, the Court quashed the impugned orders and directed immediate reinstatement with continuity of service, seniority and consequential benefits, reserving entitlement to back‑wages.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1273; Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 22164 of 2024) Case Title: UMA KANT AND ANOTHER VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Amit Anand Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Shri Ankit Goel, learned counsel for the respondent‑State