Javid Khan Salimuddin Khan And Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

2026:BHC-AUG:20401-DB
1
wp-2785-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
District : Jalna
WRIT PETITION NO.2785 OF 2026
1. Javid Khan Salimuddin Khan
Age: 37 Years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Z.P.P.S. Nandi Urdu,
Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
2. Devendra Nivrutti Bargaje
Age:- 43 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Z.P.P.S Deopimpalgaon,
Tq Badnapur, Dist.Jalna.
3. Mohammad Muzaffar Abdul Khaleque
Age:-40 Years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Z.P. High School, Bhokardan,
Tq. Bhokardan Dist. Jalna.
4. Mohammed Riyazuddin Mohammed Sultanuddin
Age: 38 Years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Z P. Vurdu High School,
Paradgaon, Tq. Ghanswangi, Dist. Jalna.
5. Kharat Pandharinath Dhondiba
Age: 52 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Z. P. C. P. S Selgaon,
Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna.
6. Smt. Mohsin Akhtar Maula Ahmad Shaikh
Age: 46 Years, Occu: Service,
R/o. ZPPS No. 1 Urdu, Bhokardan,
Tq Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna.
7. Md. Sadique Md Haroon Panjwani
Age:- 40 Years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Z.P. URDU. P. S. Satona Khu,
Tq. Partur Dist. Jalna,
8. Smt Shaikh Shabana Begum Shaikh Naseer
Age:- 40 Years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Z.P.P.S. Urdu Danapur,
Tq.Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna.

2
wp-2785-2026.odt
9. Shaikh Habib Abdul
Age 56 years, Occu: Service,
R/o At. Teacher Deogaon, CPS Georaibazar
Ta. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna.
10. Smt Rubina Parveen Mohammad Sultanuddin
Age: 40 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. ZPPSS Nutan Urdu Kanya, Ashti,
Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna.
11. Riyaz Khan Rahman Khan
Age: 38 Years, Occu: Service,
R/o Z.P.P.S. Majrewadi Urdu,
Tq. Jalna, Dist. Jalna.
12. Abdul Mateen Abdul Hafeez Qureshi
Age:- 45 Years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Z.P.P.S Nandi Urdu,
Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
13. Shaikh Shakil Salim
Age:- 39 Years, Occu: Service,
R/o. ZPPS Anwa Urdu,
Tq.Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna.
14. Ilyas Mohiuddin Maqdoom Mohiuddin
Age. 52 Years, Occu: Service,
R/o. ZPPS Urdu Ner,
Tq & Dist. Jalna.
15. Mohammed Aawez Imran
Age:- 39 Years, Occu: Service,
R/o Z.P.P.S. Dargah Sharif Urdu,
Tq. Ghansawangi, Dist. Jalna.
16. Qureshi Rasheed Khan Yasin Khan
Age:- 44 Years, Occu: Service,
Z.P.P.S. Urdu School, Godri,
Tq. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna.
17. Mohammed Iqbal Mohammed Jafar
Age:-40 Years, Occu: Service,
R/o Z.P.P.S. Naveen Gharkul Urdu Partur,
Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna

3
wp-2785-2026.odt
18. Sayed Nafees Sameena Ahemad.
Age. 40 Years, Occu: Service,
R/o Z.P. High School, Bhokardan,
Tq. Bhokardan, District. Jalna.
19. Durdana Begum Mohommad Samiuddin
Age: 37 Years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Z.P.H.S.Jamkhed Urdu,
Tq. Ambad, Dist Jalna.
20. Seema Vishwanath Kakde
Age-45 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. ZPPS Banegaon,
Tq. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna.
21. Mohammed Irfan Abdul Naim
Age: 38 Years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Z.P Urdu High School, Parradgaon,
Tq. Ghansawangi, Dist. Jalna.
22. Subhash Nivrutti Bhadange
Age: 42 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Z.P.C.P.S.Dabhadi,
Tq.Badnapur, Dist. Jalna.
23. Vikas Babulal Pothare
Age: 45 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Z.P.P.S.Mhasala,
Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna.
24. Somwanshi Nilesh Panditrao
Age: 44 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Z.P.C.P.S.Dabhadi,
Tq. Badnapur, Dist Jalna
25. Sudhakar Vithalrao Raut,
Age: 50, Occ: Service,
R/O. Z.P. P.S. Mangu,
Tq. Ghansawangi, Dist. Jalna
…..PETITIONERS
VERSUS

4
wp-2785-2026.odt
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
School Education & Sports Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Rural and Water Conservation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
3. The Secretary,
CTET, PS 1-2, Institutional Area, IP. Extension,
Patparganj, Delhi-110092.
4. The Director of Education (Primary)
Maharashtra State, Pune.
5. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Jalna,
Tq & Dist. Jalna.
6. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Jalna,
Tq & Dist. Jalna
…..RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4182 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4178 OF 2026
____________________________________________________________
Mr. Sambhaji G. Munde, Advocate for petitioners
Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for respondents-State
Mr. Prashant D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent nos.5 and 6
Mr. Ketan Pote h/f Mr. Arvind G. Ambetkar, Advocate for applicant in
CA No.4178/2026
____________________________________________________________
…..
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.
TH
DATED : 29 APRIL, 2026

5
wp-2785-2026.odt
JUDGMENT :- (Per Ajit B. Kadethankar J.)
Rule. Heard parties for final disposal of the Writ Petition. Rule
made returnable forthwith. Considering the nature of controversy, we
heard the parties for final disposal at their request.
1. Preface:
Matter pertains to the claim of Assistant Teachers for
promotion and the mandate to clear TET/CTET examination. Its no
more res- integra that only those Assistant Teachers who have cleared
TET/CTET are qualified for being considered for promotion to the
promotional posts. Present are the petitioners who were not holding
TET/CTET qualification on 01.09.2025 nor on 18.02.2026 while a
promotion process was initiated. Before the promotion list could be
published, Petitioners approached this Court vide present petition.
This Court vide interim order directed the Zilla Parishad authorities
not to conclude the process. During the pendency of the Petition,
some of the Petitioners cleared the TET/CTET. Petitioners now pray
that such Petitioners be considered for the promotion. Petitioners
contend that the final promotion list is withheld under the interim
orders of this Court which created right in favor of the successful
Petitioners who could be incorporated in the final promotion orders.
Considering the facts and Petitioners’ prayers, we frame
following issues for consideration:

6
wp-2785-2026.odt
(i) “Whether if candidates having not qualified TET/CTET
can reserve a right for promotion on the count that they
have undergone the examination during the promotion
process.”
AND
(ii) “Whether if qualification of TET/CTET could be
retrospectively made applicable for promotion.”
2. Facts in brief:
2.1 Petitioners are those Assistant Teachers who have not cleared
TET/CTET on 01.09.2025, but had undergone CTET examination
conducted in February 2026 while promotion process to fill up
vacancies on the posts of Head Masters, Cluster Heads, Graduate
Teachers and Extension Officer was initiated on 18.02.2026.
2.2 Petitioners’ predominant prayer is that since they had already
appeared for the CTET in the very month in which the promotion
process was initiated, they be included in the same subject to their
performance in the CTET examination.
2.3 This petition was pressed for urgent admission by Mr. Sambhaji
G. Munde, learned advocate for Petitioners on 13.03.2026. It was
contended that the answer key to the question sets in the CTET-
February 2026 was released just a day before i.e. on 12.03.2026, and
that the Petitioners were hopeful to find themselves successful.
Initially this court issued limited interim directions to the Zilla
Parishad authorities to hold on finalization of the Promotion list till

7
wp-2785-2026.odt
next date. The matter was then posted to 10.04.2026, and then it
was heard today. The interim order dated 13.03.2026 reads thus:
“1. Issue notice to the Respondents. Learned AGP waives
service of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4.
Learned Advocate Mr. Suryawanshi waives service of notice
on behalf of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. No necessity to issue
notice to Respondent No. 3.
2. Learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6
submits that Respondent No. 5 has only called information
as to who has cleared TET or CTET examination. Yet,
promotional list is not declared.
3. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that the
Petitioners have appeared for CTET examination February
2026 and yesterday only, the answer key has been
published. It is likely that the result would be declared in
the near future.
4. In view of the fact that promotional list is not
prepared, we direct Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 not to finalise
the list till the next date.
5. Respondents to file affidavit-in-reply within two weeks.
Copy of the same be given to the other side in advance.
6. Place the matter for further consideration on
10.04.2026.”
2.4 In the meantime, the Petitioners filed Civil Application
No.4182 of 2026 contending that the CTET- February 2026 result is
declared, and that those successful candidates amongst the

8
wp-2785-2026.odt
Petitioners be included in the subject-matter Promotion list
corresponding to their seniority and concerned post.
2.5 On the other hand, a Civil Application No.4178 of 2026 came
to be filed by Applicants therein seeking intervention. The Applicants
contend that no vested right accrued in favor of the Writ Petitioners
to get themselves included in the ongoing promotion process merely
because they had undergone the latest TET/CTET examination. The
Applicants contend that in any case only those candidates who
possessed TET/CTET qualification on 01.09.2025 or at least before
initiation of the promotion process would be entitled for being
considered in the ongoing promotion processes. They further submit
that the promotion process is unwarrantedly sought to be stalled by
the Writ Petitioners.
2.6 We have heard the Writ Petition together with the Civil
Applications in the light of the controversy placed before us. For
adjudication, we find that the matter consists of the two issues for
consideration as recorded supra.
3. Submissions
3.1 Mr. Sambhaji G. Munde, learned advocate for the Petitioners
submit that its not the case that while delivering judgment in
Anjuman-Ishaat-E-Taleem reported at 2025 INSC 1063, the

9
wp-2785-2026.odt
Honorable Supreme Court has fixed the date 01.09.2025 as a last
date for TET/CTET clearance. He would submit that law requires
that a person would become eligible for appointment/continuation of
appointment/promotion, once he/she acquires TET/CTET
qualification. Mr. Munde further submits that it’s a matter of fact
that, while the subject-matter promotion process was initiated on
th
18.02.2026, the CTET examination has already taken place on 7
th
and 8 of February 2026. He submits that the result was awaited,
and hence the petitioners rightfully approached this Court. He
submits that it is propitious for the Petitioner that, this Court vide
interim directions has withheld declaration of the final list of
promotion.
3.2 Petitioners submit that if the successful petitioners who cleared
CTET-February 2026 are not included in the promotion list, their
career would be hampered. Mr. Munde’s earnest argument is that the
peculiar facts of the case clearly show that right to be considered in
the promotion process is accrued in their favor since they had
appeared for the CTET-February 2026 even before the promotion
process was undertaken by the Zilla Parishad authorities. He would
submit that promotion is the right of the petitioners who stood
successful in the CTET-February 2026. Mr. Munde’s last argument is
that since he could demonstrate the merit on the very first day of

10
wp-2785-2026.odt
hearing, this Court has granted interim relief. Consequently, his
submission is that now the Zilla Parishad authorities be directed to
include the names of successful petitioners who cleared CTET-
February 2026.
3.3 In response, Mr. P. D. Suryawanshi, learned advocate for the
Respondents/Zilla Parishad authorities strongly opposes the
arguments advanced by the Petitioners. He submits that merely
because the Petitioners had appeared for the CTET-February 2026,
the promotion process even started after the examination can not be
made subject to the result of the said examination. He further objects
that the petitioners who stood successful in the CTET-February 2026
won’t stand at par with those who were qualified for the promotion
process on the date of its initiation.
3.4 Mr. Suryawanshi’s final submission is that in any case the law
laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Anjuman
(supra) prevails over every process and every candidate aspiring for
appointment/promotion, as the case may be. He submits that in view
of the mandate laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court (supra),
unless a person holds qualification of TET/CTET, he/she is not entitle
for promotion.

11
wp-2785-2026.odt
3.5 Mr. Suryawanshi’s earnest argument is that subsequent
acquisition of qualification can not be retrospectively made
applicable to a promotion process. He submits that the position
prevailing in respect of each candidate as on the date of initiation of
process has been taken into consideration. That, the Petitioners can
not be permitted to cure the deficiency in derogation to the law laid
down by the Honorable Supreme Court in Anjuman case (supra).
3.6 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. A. M. Phule assists
the court echoing the arguments of Mr. Suryawanshi. He submits that
Judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court in ‘Anjuman case’ (supra)
prevails over the issue. He submits that no procedure/process nor
any eventuality could take exception to the mandate laid down by
the Honorable Supreme Court. He too re-iterates that merely because
this Court has directed to hold on the promotion process for a limited
period, no right is accrued in favor of the Petitioners only on the
count that their result was awaited for CTET-February 2026.
3.7 Although Mr. Arvind G. Ambetkar sought to intervene in the
matter on behalf of such Teachers who are in the zone of promotion
as per the subject-matter promotion process, we are of the prima
facie opinion that at this juncture no right is accrued in favor of such
candidates for which their intervention is pressingly warranted in the
matter.

12
wp-2785-2026.odt
4. Consideration :
4.1 We have given cautious consideration to the arguments
advanced by the Parties. With the able assistance of the respective
advocates and learned Assistant Government Pleader, we have gone
through the various orders passed by this Court in the cases of
TET/CTET, as also the judgment rendered by the Honorable Supreme
Court in the case of Anjuman (supra).
4.2 The issue in question necessarily refers to the provisions of the
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act or Right to
Education Act 2009 (“RTE Act” for brevity). Let us now re-visit the
object of the Act to test Petitioners’ case in the light of the
observations recorded by the Honorable Supreme Court in Anjuman
case (supra).
4.3 With principal object to ensure free and compulsory education
to the children of age group between 06 to 14, the Parliament
enacted the RTE Act. In order to achieve the object, the Parliament
also felt it necessary to make provisions for encouraging the
educational institutions to impart free education to the children of
the given class, by ensuring reimbursement of the fees and expenses.
The Parliament on the other hand also thought it necessary to lay
down mandates for modalities to ensure quality education thereby

13
wp-2785-2026.odt
putting some certain conditions on the qualification and merit of the
teaching staff.
4.4 It would be advantageous to look into the Section 23 of the
RTE Act which reads as follows:
23.Qualifications for appointment and terms and
conditions of service of Teachers. -
(1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications,
as laid down by an academic authority, authorised by
the Central Government, by notification, shall be
eligible for appointment as a Teacher.
(2) Where a State does not have adequate institutions
offering courses or training in Teacher education, or
Teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid
down under sub-section (1) are not available in
sufficient numbers, the Central Government may, if it
deems necessary, by notification, relax the minimum
qualifications required for appointment as a Teacher, for
such period, not exceeding five years, as may be
specified in that notification:Provided that a Teacher
who, at the commencement of this Act, does not possess
minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section
(1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a
period of five years.[Provided further that every Teacher
appointed or in position as on the 31st March, 2015,
who does not possess minimum qualifications as laid
down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such
minimum qualifications within a period of four years
from the date of commencement of the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education
(Amendment) Act, 2017.]
(3)The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms
and conditions of service of, Teachers shall be such as
may be prescribed.
4.5 Section 23 of the RTE Act mandated qualification
corresponding to sub section (1) of the Section.

14
wp-2785-2026.odt
4.6 Pursuant to the Section 23(1) of the RTE Act, the National
Council for Teacher Education which the apex body in the country for
framing uniform modalities in school teaching, issued a notification
23.08.2010 thereby mandating that the essential qualification i.e.
Teacher Eligibility Test (“TET” for the sake of brevity), must be
possessed by a candidate seeking appointment of a Teacher in any
school as referred in the Section 2 (n) of the RTE Act.
4.7 For the sake of convenience, the notification dated 23.08.2010
issued by the National Council for Teacher Education is reproduced
as follows.
1 Minimum Qualifications.-
(i) Classes I-V
(a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least
50% marks and 2 - year Diploma in Elementary
Education (by whatever name known)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45%
marks and 2 - year Diploma in Elementary Education
(by whatever name known), in accordance with the
NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure),
Regulations 2002
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50%
marks and 4-year Bachelor of Elementary Education
(B. El. Ed.)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50%
marks and 2 year Diploma in Education (Special
Education).
AND
(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be
conducted by the appropriate Government in
accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE
for the purpose.

15
wp-2785-2026.odt
(ii) Classes VI-VIII
(a) B.A/B.Sc and 2 - year Diploma in Elementary
Education (by whatever name known)
OR
B.A/B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1 - year
Bachelor in Education (B. Ed)
OR
B.A/B.Sc. with at least 45% marks and 1 year
Bachelor in Education (B. Ed), in accordance with the
NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations
issued from time to time in this regard
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50%
marks and 4-year Bachelor in Elementary Education
(B. El. Ed)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50%
marks and 4-year BA/B.Sc. Ed or B.A. Ed./BSc. Ed.
OR
B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1-year B.Ed
(Special Education)
AND
(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be
conducted by the appropriate Government in
accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE
for the purpose
2 Diploma/Degree Course in Teacher Education.-
For the purposes of this Notification, a
diploma/degree course in Teacher education
recognized by the National Council for Teacher
Education (NCTE) only shall be considered. However,
in case of Diploma in Education (Special Education)
and B. Ed (Special Education), a course recognized by
the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) only shall be
considered.
3 Training to be undergone.- A person -
(a) with BA/B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and B. Ed
qualification shall also be eligible for appointment for
class I to V upto 1st January, 2012, provided he
undergoes, after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6-
month special programme in Elementary Education.

16
wp-2785-2026.odt
(b) with D. Ed (Special Education) or B. Ed (Special
Education) qualification shall undergo, after
appointment, an NCTE recognized 6-month special
programme in Elementary Education
4 Teacher appointed before the date of this
Notification.- The following categories of Teachers
appointed for classes I to VIII prior to date of this
Notification need not acquire the minimum
qualifications specified in Para (1) above,
(a) A Teacher appointed on or after the 3rd
September, 2001 i.e. the date on which the NCTE
(Determination of Minimum Qualifications for
Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001
(as amended from time to time) came into force, in
accordance with that Regulation.
Provided that a Teacher of class I to V possessing B. Ed
qualification, or a Teacher possessing B. Ed (Special
Education) or D. Ed (Special Education) qualification
shall undergo an NCTE recognized 6 month special
programme on elementary education.
b) A Teacher of class I to V with B. Ed qualification
who has completed a 6-month Special Basic Teacher
Course (Special BTC) approved by the NCTE,
(c) A Teacher appointed before the 3rd September,
2001, in accordance with the prevalent Recruitment
Rules.
5 Teacher appointed after the date of this
Notification in certain cases.- Where an appropriate
Government, or local authority or a school has issued
an advertisement to initiate the process of
appointment of Teachers prior to the date of this
Notification, such appointments may be made in
accordance with the NCTE (Determination of
Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers
in Schools) Regulations, 2001 (as amended from time
to time).

17
wp-2785-2026.odt
4.8 As such, qualification of holding TET conducted by appropriate
authority is condition precedent for appointment of a Teacher in
terms of the RTE Act.
4.9 An issue has been taken before the Honorable Supreme Court
by the Anjuman-Ishaat-E-Taleem institute challenging applicability of
the RTE Act to the minority institution. The Honorable Supreme
Court, in its landmark judgment laid down certain key principles like
(a) Non applicability of RTE Act to Minority Institutions; (b) Mandate
of holding TET/CTET (Central TET) qualification as on 01.09.2025
for appointment as an Assistant Teacher; (c) Grace period of 02
years to the serving Teachers who have more than 05 years to
superannuate, to clear TET/CTET to continue in the service; (d)
Necessity to hold TET/CTET qualification for seeking promotion to
the promotional post etc. Pertinent to note, the Honorable Supreme
Court has not given any grace period for promotion unlike
appointment/continuation in appointment.
4.10 So far as promotion issue is concerned, the Honorable
Supreme Court observed at para ‘J’ as follows:
“J. Applicability Of The Tet To In-Service Teachers
Appointed Prior To 2009 And Requirement Of Tet
Qualification For Promotion Of Teachers
164. There are yet two other connected issues that
require our attention. The TET is a statutory
requirement introduced under the RTE Act and the
corresponding NCTE notifications. It is aimed at

18
wp-2785-2026.odt
ensuring minimum professional standards in the
recruitment of elementary school Teachers, in line
with the mandate under Section 23 of the RTE Act.
165. Section 23 of the RTE Act vests the Central
Government with the power to designate an academic
authority to prescribe minimum qualifications for
Teachers. Pursuant to conferment of such power, the
NCTE was notified as the academic authority under
sub-section (1) which is empowered to prescribe the
eligibility criteria for appointment as Teachers in
schools governed by the RTE Act.
166. In exercise of its authority under Section 23(1),
the NCTE issued a Notification dated 23rd August,
2010, later amended by Notification dated 29th July,
2011, laying down that passing the TET is a
mandatory condition for appointment of Teachers in
classes I to VIII in schools covered by Section 2(n) of
the RTE Act. The notifications clarify that the TET
must be conducted by the appropriate Government in
accordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE.
The legal position emerging therefrom is clear: the
TET is not a mere procedural requirement but forms
an essential part of the minimum qualification criteria.
167. Importantly, the first and second provisos to
Section 23(2) of the RTE Act carve out a transitional
obligation for in-service Teachers who did not possess
the minimum qualifications at the time of
commencement of the RTE Act. They were required to
acquire such qualifications including passing the TET
within a prescribed time frame. The second proviso
introduced by the Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 201780
extended this compliance period by a period of four
years from the date of commencement of the 2017
Amendment Act, which was deemed to have come

19
wp-2785-2026.odt
into force on 1st April, 2015, i.e., till 2019 and not
2021 if four years were calculated from the date of the
notification (i.e., 9th August, 2017). The express
legislative intent was to bring all in-service Teachers
within the ambit of uniform quality standards.
168. NCTE’s notification also reinforces this
requirement by stating that Teachers working in
unaided private schools, or those already in position
as of 31st 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.
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 across
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.”
4.11 Another beneficial reference also can be made to the findings
of the Honorable Supreme Court at Paragraph No.M – 195 to 201.

20
wp-2785-2026.odt
195. Furthermore, reference may be made to the
decision of this Court in K. Narayanan v. State of
Karnataka82 where this Court traced the meaning of
the word ‘recruitment’ and held:
“6. … ‘Recruitment’ according to the dictionary means
‘enlist’. It is a comprehensive term and includes any
method provided for inducting a person in public
service. Appointment, selection, promotion,
deputation are all well-known methods of recruitment.
Even appointment by transfer is not unknown. ….”
196. Appointment and recruitment are two distinct
but not unrelated concepts. Recruitment is the broader
process of which selection is a part that culminates in
an appointment. Recruitment can be carried out from
various sources, which are broadly classified into
internal and external sources. Internal sources would
comprise individuals who are already employed within
the organization. This would include an appointment
by promotion or transfer. External sources, on the
other hand, consist of individuals who are not
currently in the service of the recruiting organization.
Direct recruitment is an appointment from external
sources or from open market, so to say.
197. Having noticed what this Court has held in
relation to recruitment/ appointment, we turn to
Section 23 of the RTE Act.
198. Reading Section 23 of the RTE Act, we find that
the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 23
thereof assumes importance for dealing with the
contention. For brevity, the proviso is reproduced
below:
“Provided that a Teacher who, at the commencement
of this Act, does not possess minimum qualifications as
laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such
minimum qualifications within a period of five years.”
199. The proviso provides for a deadline for all

21
wp-2785-2026.odt
Teachers, who are in service, to acquire the prescribed
minimum qualifications within a period of five years.
Should they fail to do so, they render themselves
ineligible to continue on their post. The objective
behind introducing the proviso is to uphold the best
interest of the children by ensuring quality education,
not only through Teachers who were to be appointed
after the commencement of the RTE Act but also for
in-service Teachers.
200. If we are to accept the contention of the in-
service Teachers, the abovesaid proviso would be
rendered nugatory. Obtaining the TET qualification
under the RTE Act is mandatory and the consequence
of not obtaining such qualification flowing from the
scheme of the RTE Act is that the in-service Teachers
would cease to have any right to continue in service.
Reference may also be made to letter dated 3rd
August, 2017 (discussed in paragraph 69 above)
issued by the MHRD which provided a deadline
beyond which the in-service Teachers, having not
qualified the TET, would not be permitted to continue
in service.
201. Having regard to the foregoing, we see no reason
to hold that the minimum qualifications prescribed by
the Council would apply only for initial appointment
and not for promotion.
4.12 A profitable reference can be made to the paragraph Nos. 216
and 218 of the Judgment which are reproduced below for the sake of
convenience:
“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

22
wp-2785-2026.odt
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.
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.
4.13 Thus, its abundantly clear that the candidates who hold
TET/CTET are the only Teachers qualified for promotion.
4.14 Now in the case in hand, the respondent authorities were in
the process to initiate promotion process for the posts of Head
Master, Cluster Head, Graduate Teacher, Extension Officer (Teacher)
through the feeding posts of Teacher category. The Directorate of
School Education sought instructions from the NCTE regarding
applicability of the Judgment in Anjuman case (supra). Vide letter
dated 19.01.2026, the State Government clarified that only TET
holder Teachers shall be qualified for promotion. Accordingly, vide
letter dated 09.02.2026 the Director of Education (Primary)
informed that TET shall be a mandatory condition for promotion.
Promotion is not a service condition that takes place overnight. The
promotion process in the Zilla Parishad was on large scale.

23
wp-2785-2026.odt
Accordingly, promotion process was initiated on 18.02.2026 which is
the crucial date.
4.15 Pursuant to above, the Zilla Parishad Jalna vide letter dated
18.02.2026 initiated promotion process to the promotional posts
(supra).
4.16 It is an undisputed fact that the Petitioners were not holding
TET/CTET neither on 01.09.2025 nor on the date on which the
promotion process was initiated i.e. 18.02.2026. Vide letter dated
23.02.2026, the Akhil Maharashtra Urdu Shikshak Sanghatana Jalna,
under the signature of the Petitioner No.1 submitted a request letter
to the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad Jalna. It was
requested that since a number of Teachers have appeared for the
th th
TET/CTET examination conducted on 7 and 8 February 2026, the
promotion process be stalled to enable the successful aspirants to be
considered for the promotion.
4.17 Vide another letter dated 20.02.2026 a request was submitted
to the Education Officer (Primary) Z.P. Jalna by some Teachers
mentioning that there is no time stipulation for implementing the
promotion process. That, period of two years was granted to clear
TET/CTET examination for Teachers to continue in services. That,
promotion be granted on the basis of seniority and two years time be
granted to clear the TET/CTET to the promotee who were not

24
wp-2785-2026.odt
possessing TET/CTET. Similar request was also made by some other
Teachers.
4.18 The Petitioners filed present petition mentioning urgency. On
13.03.2026, this Court issued limited interim directions to the Zilla
Parishad authorities to hold on the final stage of the promotion. In
the meantime, some of the Teachers who participated TET/CTET
cleared the examination, and they now claim that their names be
considered for promotion.
4.19 The facts are very clear and unambiguous. The Petitioners
were not holding qualification of TET/CTET on 01.09.2025 or on the
date of initiation of the promotion process. They merely appeared for
the CTET examination. Their result is declared later. The Honorable
Supreme Court has held that qualification of TET/CTET is
compulsory even for promotion. We are bound by the principles laid
down by the Honorable Supreme Court in Anjuman case (supra). The
directions and observations of the Anjuman case (supra) are the
mandates for all. No exception can be taken to those nor they can be
interpreted the way the Petitioners pray.
4.20 Now here is the case where Petitioners submit that since the
promotion process is not yet finalized, the successful petitioners in
CTET be included in the promotion list. They submit that finalization
of the promotions was stalled due to intervention of this Court

25
wp-2785-2026.odt
finding prima facie case in favor of the Petitioners. And hence, they
want that effect of CTET result be made applicable retrospectively by
curing the seniority list.
4.21 We do not concede with such arguments. Petitioners’ result can
not be made effective retrospectively. This Court while passing order
on 13.03.2026 has not expressed anything on merits of the case. As
observed above, process of promotion is not an overnight act to be
done by the Zilla Parishad. It has multiple stages. In order to test
Petitioners’ case on merits, the limited interim directions were issued.
In any case, there can be no exception to the observations and
directions issued by the Honorable Supreme Court in Anjuman case
(supra).
4.22 Hence there is no vested right in favor of the Petitioners to
claim promotion through such promotion process which was in
pipeline while the Petitioners had filed present petition. Resultantly,
neither the promotion process could be stalled anymore nor the right
of the candidates falling in the zone of promotion in the said
promotion process could be intervened. Needless to mention, the
TET/CTET petitioner may be qualified for subsequent promotion
process, but not in the present one.

26
wp-2785-2026.odt
4.23 This Court, while dealing with a similar petition has observed
on 10.04.2026 in Writ Petition no.2771 of 2026 with connected

10. Here, we are basically required to consider the
ratio laid down in Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust
(Supra) and whether the petitioners can be said to be
entitled to be considered for the promotion. Even in
the interim order, on which now the learned Advocate
for the petitioners is relying, we had observed that
those Teachers who had cleared the TET would be
considered for promotion. So as of right the
petitioners’ cannot seek any interim protection. We
would consider the point ‘ J ’ of the decision in
Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust (Supra) i.e.
applicability of the TET to in- service Teachers
appointed prior to 2009 and requirement of the TET
qualification for promotion of Teachers. Paragraph
Nos.164 to 170 of the aforesaid judgment discuss the
aspect and especially in paragraph No.170, it has been
observed thus :-
“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.”
11. We are also taking note of paragraph Nos.216 to
218 of the aforesaid judgment, which read thus :-
“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'

27
wp-2785-2026.odt
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.
12. Paragraph No.170 of the decision in Anjuman
Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust (Supra) is crystallizing the right,
yet if we read paragraph Nos.216 and 218 conjointly,
then it can be seen that it has been laid down that
those Teachers, who have less than five years left as on
date (that means on 01.09.2025 when the decision
came) may continue in service, till they attain the age
of superannuation without qualifying the TET,
however, those Teachers having left less than five
years, if aspire promotion, then without qualifying
TET, he or she will not be considered and then
paragraph No.218 reiterates that those in-service

28
wp-2785-2026.odt
Teachers aspiring for appointment by promotion
should qualify TET and this date will have to be taken
as 01.09.2025, when Hon’ble Supreme Court
pronounced the judgment.
4.24 While the competent authority canceled the promotion list on
account of realizing that the some of the enlisted candidates were not
holding TET/CTET, the excluded candidates filed Writ Petition
No.2547 of 2026 in this Court. After conscious consideration to the
facts of the case, this Court vide its Judgment and Order dated
23.04.2026 upheld the decision of the Authorities in the light of the
observations made in the case of Sanju Rathod and ors.(supra).
4.25 The alternate prayer to promote the Teachers as per seniority
and to grant two years period to clear TET/CTET after promotion
alike appointments, is beyond the observations and the directions
issued by the Honorable Supreme Court. The Honorable Supreme
Court has thoughtfully excluded the process of promotion from the
grace period of two years that is offered for the in-service Teachers
for continuation as Teacher. As such, a Teacher must possess
TET/CTET for promotion on the date of initiation of the promotion
process; and there cannot be ex post facto TET/CTET qualification
compliance.

29
wp-2785-2026.odt
4.26 We find that no further words are needed to hold that
Petitioners’ case is perfectly hit by the law laid down by the
Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Anjuman (supra). The
interim order dated 13.03.2026 passed by this Court did not create
any right in any of the Petitioners’ favor nor can be used to take
exception to the law laid down in Anjuman case (supra).
4.27 Consequently, we answer the framed issues and hold that:
(1) Teachers until qualify TET/CTET, cannot
reserve a right for promotion in the promotion process,
and even though the TET/CTET examination has been
conducted prior to the initiation of the promotion
process;
AND
(2) TET/CTET qualification shall not be
retrospectively applicable for the purpose of promotion.
5. Hence, we pass following order.
ORDER
I. The Writ Petition stands dismissed.
II. Interim orders merge in this order.
III. All Civil Applications stand disposed in view of dismissal
of the Writ Petition.

30
wp-2785-2026.odt
IV. The Respondent authorities may continue with the
impugned promotion process.
V. Rule stands discharged.
[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.]
Rushikesh/2026