Seniority of qualified teachers must be reckoned from initial appointment date regardless of TET completion timing.

The Petitioners are teachers recruited between 1995 and 2003 who hold B.Ed and D.Ed qualifications.

Although initially exempt from the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) under earlier policies, they subsequently cleared the TET by March 2026 following Supreme Court mandates.

During a promotional exercise for the post of Head Master, the Zilla Parishad initially included the Petitioners in a seniority list dated April 15, 2026, based on their original appointment dates.

However, a subsequent list issued on May 25, 2026, deleted their names, citing a 2019 Government Resolution (GR) because they had not cleared the TET by September 1, 2025.

The Petitioners challenged this deletion as discriminatory.

1. Whether the deletion of the Petitioners' names from the seniority list, on the grounds that they cleared the TET after the cut-off date, constitutes arbitrary discrimination.

2. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to interim relief staying the promotional process based on the modified seniority list.

The court examined the administrative application of Government Resolution (GR) dated August 1, 2019, specifically Clause 5.1.3, which dictates seniority criteria based on qualification dates.

The court also considered the principle of non-discrimination and the protection of legitimate seniority for long-serving employees who have met all current statutory qualifications (TET) mandated by the National Council for Teacher Education and the Supreme Court.

The court observed that the Zilla Parishad’s approach was prima facie incorrect because the Petitioners are now fully qualified and have cleared the TET.

The court reasoned that since the Petitioners were recruited between 1995 and 2003—at a time when TET was not a requirement—their seniority should ideally be reckoned from their original date of appointment.

By deleting their names simply because they qualified for the TET later than junior staff, the Zilla Parishad created a situation where junior teachers could supersede seniors, causing "gross injustice" and prejudice.

The court found that such an application of the 2019 GR appeared arbitrary when applied to teachers who had already achieved the necessary qualifications before the promotion exercise commenced.

For interim relief, the court held that the impugned seniority list dated May 25, 2026, shall not be acted upon.

Consequently, the court directed the Respondent-Zilla Parishad, Palghar, not to undertake any promotional exercises based on the disputed list until further orders.

The matter is scheduled for further hearing on July 28, 2026.