AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. Since, the issue involved in both these petitions is common, the petitions are heard and are being decided by common order at the admission stage.
By these petitions, the petitioners have put-forth the following prayers respectively :
“A. To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction in the nature of Mandamus, directing Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to hold the Petitioners exempted from the requirement of passing the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) in light of their appointments prior to 03.09.2001 and the law laid down in Anjuman-E-Taleem Trust (supra) and WP No. 1279 of 2026;
B. To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction in the nature of Mandamus, directing Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to forthwith consider the candidature of the Petitioners for promotion to the post of Extension Officer (Education) on the basis of their original seniority, along with all consequential service and monetary benefits.”
PRAYERS IN WRIT PETITION NO.1817 OF 2026
“B) To Quash and set-aside impugned the communication dated 21.01.2026 issued by Zilla Parishad Department (primary) to respective Block Education Officer Panchayat Samiti.
AND/OR
C) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the Respondents to grant promotion to senior teachers, including the Petitioners, subject to an undertaking that they shall submit the TET certificate within a period of two years.”
Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners, learned AGP for respondent/State and learned Advocate Mr. Reddy for intervenors.
Learned Advocate for the petitioners by relying on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench at Kolhapur in Writ Petition No.1279 of 2026 submitted that in similar facts, this Court at Kolhapur Bench has granted relief to the petitioners therein, by directing that the respondents shall carry out the exercise contemplated in paragraph No.168 in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjuman E-Taleem Trust vs. the State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 861.
This Court in the said Writ Petition No.1279 of 2026 has observed thus :
“6.All such teachers whose dates of appointment are prior to September 2001 shall stand exempted from passing the TET examination, in accordance with the directions contained in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjuman-E-Taleem Trust Versus the State of Maharashtra and Ors'. In paragraph 168 of the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus:
"168.NCTE's notification also reinforces this requirement by stating that teachers working in unaided private schools, or those already in position as of 31 March, 2015, must qualify the TET within the stipulated period. The language of both the RTE Act and the notification leaves no room for ambiguity that even those teachers appointed prior to the RTE Act, if not qualified, must meet the TET requirement within the grace period granted. Only those appointed prior to 3rd September, 2001 in accordance with applicable recruitment rules, or those covered by specific exceptions (e.g., Special BTC or D.Ed. courses), were exempted."
7.The only issue that remains is the ascertainment of the dates of appointment of the Petitioners. The said exercise shall be carried out within a period of four weeks from today, and appropriate orders shall thereafter be passed by the concerned Respondent Zilla Parishad, Satara.”
He, therefore, seeks the same relief. He further submits that the State has failed to conduct the TET examinations since last 1 ½ years and therefore, the petitioners have lost their chance of getting the promotion. He submits that the petitioners are ready to furnish undertaking that they will pass the TET examination within two (02) years, if they are granted promotion as per their seniority.
Learned Advocate for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are appointed before the year 2001 and therefore, prior to the introduction of the TET examination. He submits that appropriate order, in the facts of the present case may be passed.
Learned Advocate for the intervenors, on the other hand, brought to our notice, the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench at Principal Seat in Writ Petition No.3461 of 2026, wherein, while dealing with a similar challenge, this Court has dismissed the petition.
This Court at Principal Seat in Writ Petition No.3461 of 2026 has made the following observations :
“7.The answer to all contentions of the Shri Pakale lies in Anjuman Ishaat E Taleem Trust Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1385 of 2025), delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 1st September, 2025. We are of the view that the above contention of Shri Pakale is on account of a complete misreading of paragraph 168, which has to be read in tandem with paragraph 169 and 170. For clarity, we are reproducing paragraph 168 here under:
"168. NCTE's notification also reinforces this requirement by stating that teachers working in unaided private schools, or those already in position as of 31 March, 2015, must qualify the TET within the stipulated period. The language of both the RTE Act and the notification leaves no room for ambiguity that even those teachers appointed prior to the RTE Act, if not qualified, must meet the TET requirement within the grace period granted. Only those appointed prior to 3 September, 2001 in accordance with applicable recruitment rules, or those covered by specific exceptions (e.g., Special BTC or D.Ed. courses), were exempted."
8.We have no doubt whatsoever, that the above paragraph is an expression of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the language used in the NCET notification and Section 23 of the RTE Act. The issue of whether there is any ambiguity in the language used in the notification and the RTE Act, has been dealt with by the Court and it is just an observation on what is said in the notification and S. 23. The further paragraph nos.169 and 170, clearly indicate the view and conclusions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9.In paragraph Nos. 169 and 170, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the language of S. 23 of the R.T.E. as well as the Notification issued by the N.C.T.E., and has concluded as under:
"169. Thus, read holistically, Section 23 of the RTE Act and the NCTE notifications together establish the TET as a compulsory qualifying criterion for all teachers appointed on or after 23rd August, 2010, and as a time-bound compliance obligation for those appointed earlier without the requisite qualifications. The sole object is to ensure uniform teaching standards institutions imparting elementary education. Viewed in this light, the TET is not only a mandatory eligibility requirement but it is a constitutional necessity flowing from the right to quality education under Article 21A.
170.As a logical corollary to the above, it is axiomatic that those in-service teachers who aspire for promotion, irrespective of the length of their service, have to qualify the TET in order to be eligible to have their candidature considered for promotion.”
[Emphasis is supplied]
10.In the final concluding paragraph nos. 215, 216, 217 and 218, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the position of the in-service candidates, appointed prior to the advent of the TET regime and those seeking promotion or fresh employment, and has held as under:
"215.However, we are mindful of the ground realities as well as the practical challenges. There are in-service teachers who were recruited much prior to the advent of the RTE Act and who might have put in more than two or even three decades of service. They have been imparting education to their students to the best of their ability without any serious complaint. It is not that the students who have been imparted education by the non-TET qualified teachers have not shone in life. To dislodge such teachers from service on the ground that they have not qualified the TET would seem to be a bit harsh although we are alive to the settled legal position that operation of a statute can never be seen as an evil.
216.Bearing in mind their predicament, we invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and direct that those teachers who have less than five years' service left, as on date, may continue in service till they attain the age of superannuation without qualifying the TET. However, we make it clear that if any such teacher (having less than five years' service left) aspires for promotion, he will not be considered eligible without he/she having qualified the TET.
217.Insofar as in-service teachers recruited prior to enactment of the RTE Act and having more than 5 years to retire on superannuation are concerned, they shall be under an obligation to qualify the TET within 2 years from date in order to continue in service. If any of such teachers fail to qualify the TET within the time that we have allowed, they shall have to quit service. They may be compulsorily retired; and paid whatever terminal benefits they are entitled to. We add a rider that to qualify for the terminal benefits, such teachers must have put in the qualifying period of service, in accordance with the rules. If any teacher has not put in the qualifying service and there is some deficiency, his/her case may be considered by the appropriate department in the Government upon a representation being made by him/her.
218.Subject to what we have said above, it is reiterated that those aspiring for appointment and those in-service teachers aspiring for appointment by promotion must. however, qualify the TET; or else, they would have no right of consideration of their candidature.”
[Emphasis is supplied]
Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally ordered as under:
(a)Those in-service candidates who are recruited prior to the advent of the T.E.T. regime, with less than 5 years of service remaining, need not acquire the T.E.T. qualification, provided they would not be entitled for any promotion.
(b)Those in service candidates who have more than 5 years of service for retirement, shall acquire T.E.T. qualification within 2 years from the date of the Order of the Judgment, meaning thereby that such qualification shall be acquired on or before 1st September 2027, or shall have to face termination from service.
Those candidates who seek promotion by appointment, shall acquire T.E.T. before their candidature can be considered for promotion.
The above directions ever cover those in-service candidates who do not have T.E.T. and desire promotion, either through the promotional channel or through department examination for promotion, shall have to acquire the T.E.T. qualification and only thereafter, their candidature could be considered.
In view of the above, we do not find that these Petitioners can canvass any ground against the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down in Anjuman Ishaat E Taleem Trust (supra). The vehement reliance of the learned Senior Advocate on paragraph 168 (reproduced herein above), is wholly misplaced in contending that those who have been appointed prior to 3rd September 2001, are exempted from acquiring TET and they can continue in employment for their entire remainder service and can also claim promotion, without the TET qualification.
13 In paragraph 168, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the language of the RTE provisions and the NCTE Notification. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has concluded that there is no ambiguity in the said provisions. That is, however, not the conclusion of the Court that those who are appointed prior to 3rd September 2001, are permitted to be promoted without the T.E.T. qualifications even today. The only exception carved out in Anjuman Ishaat E Taleem Trust (supra) is that since the matter pertaining to the minority institutions has been referred to a larger Bench, the conclusions in Anjuman Ishaat E Taleem Trust (supra), are not applicable to minority institutions, until the afore stated issue is decided. Per contra, candidates working in non-minority institutions, both prior to the advent of the T.E.T. regime or seeking fresh appointment on promotion, are mandated to have the T.E.T. qualification, if they desire promotion.
The M.T.E.T. is equivalent of C.T.E.T. This Court has taken a view in Writ Petition No. 2993 of 2026 and group of matters (Ajay Chokha Kate and Others vs. State Of Maharashtra and Others), that the Petitioners are at liberty to acquire the T.E.T. qualifications and if they do so, they are at liberty to seek promotion provided they fulfill all eligibility criterion. This would mean, either MTET or CTET. And there is no dispute on this aspect, by the Respondent State or the State authorities.”
The issue raised by the petitioners in these petitions is squarely covered by the aforesaid observations.
While passing the order at Kolhapur Circuit Bench, the order passed by this Court at Principal Seat in Writ Petition No.3461 of 2026 is not brought to the notice of the said Bench.
In the light of the observations made by this Court at Principal Seat, we find no merit in the petitions. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
At this stage, learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that, in Writ Petition No.1817 OF 2026, some of the petitioners have already appeared for the TET examination and their results are now declared. Therefore, those petitioners who have passed the TET examination, may be considered for promotion.
The respondents may consider the cases of the petitioners who have passed the TET examination, if they are otherwise eligible for promotion.
Civil Application No. 4237 Of 2026 is allowed.