TET/CTET qualification is mandatory upon initiation of promotion process and cannot be acquired retrospectively.

The 25 Petitioners are Assistant Teachers serving in Zilla Parishad (ZP) schools in Jalna.

On February 18, 2026, the Zilla Parishad initiated a promotion process for posts including Head Masters and Graduate Teachers.

At the time the process began, the Petitioners had not cleared the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) or Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET), though they had appeared for the CTET exam on February 7–8, 2026.

While the results were pending, the Petitioners approached the High Court, which granted an interim order on March 13, 2026, staying the finalization of the promotion list.

During the pendency of the petition, the CTET results were declared, and some Petitioners qualified; they subsequently sought to be included in the promotion list based on these new results.

1. Whether candidates who are not qualified in TET/CTET can reserve a right for promotion on the grounds that they underwent the examination during the promotion process.

2. Whether the qualification of TET/CTET could be retrospectively made applicable for a promotion process.

Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (RTE), 2009, which mandates that teachers possess minimum qualifications as laid down by the authorized academic authority.

NCTE Notification dated August 23, 2010, which established "Pass in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET)" as a mandatory minimum qualification.

Precedent of Anjuman-Ishaat-E-Taleem v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 1063), which held that TET is a "constitutional necessity" and a mandatory eligibility requirement for in-service teachers aspiring for promotion, irrespective of their length of service.

The Court reasoned that the right to be considered for promotion only accrues to those who are fully qualified on the date the promotion process is initiated.

The Court rejected the Petitioners' argument that appearing for an exam prior to the initiation of the process entitles them to a "reserved" slot contingent on results.

The Court clarified that while the Supreme Court in Anjuman granted a two-year grace period for existing teachers to qualify to continue in service, it specifically excluded promotions from this relaxation.

The Court observed that promotion is not an overnight act but a multi-stage process, and the Petitioners' lack of qualification on the crucial date (February 18, 2026) was a fatal deficiency that could not be cured ex post facto.

The Court noted that the interim stay granted on March 13, 2026, was merely to test the merits and did not create any vested legal right or permit a bypass of the Supreme Court's mandate.

The Writ Petition was dismissed, the interim stay was vacated, and the Respondent authorities were directed to proceed with the original promotion process excluding the Petitioners.