TET Relaxation Affects Eligibility Not Merit – General Category Migration Allowed | SC

Case Details: Chaya vs. State of Maharashtra - [2026] 184 taxmann.com 530 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Alok Aradhe & Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) issued guidelines for conducting the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). The said Guidelines prescribe qualifying marks for passing TET. The Qualifying marks for passing TET for candidates belonging to the general categories were fixed at 60%.

However, State Government, Local Bodies, Government-aided and unaided institutions were granted liberty to grant concessions to persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and differently abled persons, etc., in accordance with the extant reservation policy. Thus, relaxation in TET marks is expressly permitted by NCTE.

It was noted that the relaxation in one of the conditions for securing 60% marks in the qualifying examination, i.e., TET, only enables reserved category candidates to participate in the main examination, i.e., TAIT. Such relaxation only creates a level playing field. Further, it was noted that inter se merit for appointment has to be determined solely based on performance in the main examination, i.e., TAIT.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court observed that no relaxation or concession has been granted to reserved category candidates in the main examination, i.e. TAIT, and their merit has been evaluated at par with general category candidates.

The Supreme Court held that appellants who admittedly were more meritorious than the last selected candidate under the general category could not be excluded from consideration under the general category in the absence of any express prohibition in the Recruitment Rules/notification.

Further, the Supreme Court held that the relaxation in the qualifying criteria affects only eligibility, not merit, and that migration is permissible in the absence of any prohibition. Therefore, the appellants were entitled to migrate to the general category.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in WPC-2534-2024, dated 14.02.2025 (para 33) set aside
• Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC 119
• Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwa (2017) 1 SCC 350 (para 32) followed
• Government of (NCT of Delhi) v. Pradeep Kumar (2019) 10 SCC 120 (para 30)
• Union of India v. Sajib Roy [2025] 178 taxmann.com 275 (SC)/2025 SCC OnLine SC 1943
• Union of India v. G. Kiran [2026] 182 taxmann.com 157 (SC)/2026 INSC 15 (para 32) distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

• Government of (NCT of Delhi) v. Pradeep Kumar (2019) 10 SCC 120 (para 9)
• Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC 119 (para 10)
• Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwa (2017) 1 SCC 350 (para 10)
• Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912 (para 10)
• Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P. (2021) 4 SCC 542 (para 10)
• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) Supp (3) SCC 217 (para 10)
• Rajasthan High Court v. Rajat Yadav [2025] 181 taxmann.com 906 (SC) (para 10)
• Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court (2025) 2 SCC 1 (para 10)
• V. Lavanya v. State of T.N. (2017) 1 SCC 322 (para 10)
• Union of India v. Sajib Roy [2025] 178 taxmann.com 275 (SC) (para 16)
• Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 1 (para 17)
• Union of India v. G. Kiran [2026] 182 taxmann.com 157 (SC) (para 18).