Teachers Who Cleared TET Within Extended Time Cannot Be Terminated | SC

Case Details: Uma Kant vs. State of U.P. - [2025] 180 taxmann.com 48 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• B.R. Gavai, CJ. & K. Vinod Chandran, J.
• Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, Satyam Pandey, Madhu Bala, Ram Anugrah Singh, Krishna Kant Shukla, Advs. & Kisalaya Shukla, AOR for the Petitioner.
• Ankit Goel, AOR, Vikas Bansal, S.B. Gautam & O.P. Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellants were selected as Assistant Teachers in a recognized and aided junior high school (JPT Junior High School). An advertisement was issued on 3 July 2011 inviting applications up to 16 July 2011, and the appellants applied. The NCTE notification dated August 23, 2010, prescribed passing the TET as the minimum qualification for appointment as a teacher for Classes I–VIII under Section 23(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

The First TET in Uttar Pradesh was held on 13 November 2011. The BSA approved the appellants’ selection on March 13, 2012, and they joined on March 17, 2012. The Appellant No. 1 cleared TET on 25 November 2011, and Appellant No. 2 cleared TET on 24 May 2014.

By an amendment dated August 9, 2017, the second proviso to Section 23(2) of the Act required every teacher appointed or in position as on March 31, 2015, who did not possess the minimum qualifications to acquire them within four years from the amendment. On 12 July 2018, BSA terminated appellants’ services on the ground that they did not possess TET qualification at the time of their appointment.

The appellants, along with two others, filed a Writ Petition before the High Court challenging BSA’s order/communication. The Writ Petition was dismissed on 12 March 2024. An intra-court appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench on 1 May 2024, affirming the Single Judge. Thereafter, an appeal was made before the Supreme Court.

It was noted that since appellants had acquired minimum qualifications, including TET, by 24 March 2014, while second proviso to Section 23(2) of the Act, provides that unqualified teachers appointed/in-position as on 31 March 2015 shall acquire minimum qualifications before 31 March 2019, appellants could not be said to be unqualified on date of their termination i.e., 12 July 2018, when undisputedly they had already qualified TET by 24 March 2014.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court held that the non-interference by the Single Judge of the High Court and the same being affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court was erroneous, as the requirement to qualify TET was to be complied with by 31 March 2019, by which time the appellants had undisputedly passed TET.

Therefore, the order/communication recalling the selection of appellants for posts of Assistant Teachers was to be quashed and set aside, and the respondents were to be directed to reinstate the appellants forthwith to the post of Assistant Teacher in JPT Junior High School.