SET in Relevant Subject Mandatory for HSST Appointment | SC

Case Details: Zubair. P vs. State of Kerala [2026] 183 taxmann.com 482 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Vipul M. Pancholi & K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
• Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv., Harish Beeran, Azhar Assees, Anand B. Menon, Ms Rizwana R. Raj, Shaswat Jena, Advs. & Radha Shyam Jena, AOR for the Petitioner.
• Dileep Poolakkot, Ms Ashly Harshad, Mahabir Singh, Dr Arunender Thakur, Anshul Saharan, Ms Lakshmi Sree P., Shifaz R. Dheen, Ms Lebina Baby, Ms Anne Mathew, Rishi Maheshwari, Bharat Sood, Jai Govind M.J., Jashan Vir Singh, Advs., Harshad V. Hameed, Zulfiker Ali P. S. & P. S. Sudheer, AORs for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the question was placed before the Supreme Court regarding whether passing the State Eligibility Test (SET) in the concerned subject is mandatory to qualify for appointment as a Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST).

It was noted that, when Rule 6(2)(24)(iii) of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules is read with prospectus of the SET examination, particularly Clause 2 of the prospectus, it can be safely said that the candidate is required to pass the SET in concerned subject to qualify for the appointment to the post of the HSST in said concerned subject.

Further, it was noted that, even though in Rule 6(2)(24)(iii) of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules, the words ‘in concerned subject’ are missing, the said Rule cannot be interpreted in isolation, and textual omission has to be inferred from context, purpose and scheme of the provision.

Thus, the said clause is required to be interpreted in the aforesaid manner, and possession of the SET qualification in any other subject unrelated to the teaching post does not satisfy the statutory eligibility criteria.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court observed that where the appellant was appointed as a HSST (Economics) and it was not in dispute that the appellant, though having a Bachelor’s Degree as well as a Master’s Degree in Economics, passed the SET in Malayalam, whereas, the respondent no. 4 was having degrees of Bachelor’s and Master’s in Economics as well as the SET qualification in Economics, respondent no. 4 was eligible for appointment as a HSST (Economics).

The Supreme Court held that, since the appellant had completed less than ten years of approved teaching service at the High School level, he was not entitled to seek an exemption under Rule 10(4) of Chapter XXXII of the Rules.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of High Court of Kerala (Division Bench) Writ Appeal No. 733 of 2024
• Writ Appeal No. 769 of 2024, dated 18.07.2024 (para 25) affirmed
• Manager, MPVHS School v. Girija (2003) 1 KLT 935 (para 23), and Geetha v. State of Kerala 2012 (1) KLT 829 (para 24) distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

• Geetha v. State of Kerala (2012 (1) KLT 829) (para 7.5)
• Manager, MPVHS School v. Girija (2003) 1 KLT 935 (para 7.6)
• Union of India v. Pushpa Rani (2008) 9 SCC 242 (para 8.1)
• Kunjunjamma v. State of Kerala (2015) 11 SCC 440 (para 8.2)
• Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. (1987) 1 SCC 424 (para 16).