TET is mandatory for promotion; pragmatic cut-off date extensions are permissible to prevent mass candidate disqualification.

The petitioners, in-service teachers in various Zilla Parishads, challenged the eligibility criteria for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for promotion to the post of Cluster Head (Kendrapramukh).

The State issued an advertisement on September 29, 2025, for the LDCE.

Under the modified Recruitment Rules dated July 18, 2025, the cut-off date for the required six years of service was established as the 1st of January of the year of the advertisement (i.e., January 1, 2025).

However, following the Supreme Court judgment in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra, which mandated the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for promotions, the State issued a corrigendum on November 4, 2025, extending the eligibility cut-off date to January 1, 2026.

The LDCE was eventually conducted on February 3 and 4, 2026, coinciding with the declaration of the final results of the 2025-2026 TET.

The petitioners argued that the State could not deviate from the statutory Recruitment Rules to shift the cut-off date.

1. Whether the cut-off date for eligibility (6 years of service and TET qualification) should be January 1, 2025, as per the Recruitment Rules, or January 1, 2026, as per the State's corrigendum.

2. Whether candidates who passed the TET examination result declared on February 3, 2026, should be considered eligible for the Cluster Head LDCE held on the same dates.

Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, regarding mandatory teacher qualifications.

The precedent in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra, which established that TET is a constitutional necessity for both appointment and promotion of teachers.

Rule 8-A of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 (as amended in 2025), which prescribes the cut-off date for service experience.

The principles from Tej Prakash Pathak v. State of Rajasthan and Chhotu Ram v. State of Haryana, which allow for administrative pragmatism and the filling of gaps in recruitment procedures to prevent manifest injustice.

The court observed a conflict between the strict letter of the Recruitment Rules (January 1, 2025) and the State’s inclusive approach (January 1, 2026).

It noted that the LDCE had not been conducted for six years and a strict view would disqualify thousands of candidates who gained the mandatory TET qualification or completed their service tenure during the delay.

The court reasoned that while recruitment rules are generally binding, the unique circumstances—specifically the Supreme Court's mid-process mandate of TET in Anjuman Ishaat—justified a "golden mean" approach.

The court found that extending the cut-off date to January 1, 2026, and including those who passed the TET on February 3, 2026, served the public interest by ensuring a larger pool of qualified candidates without causing prejudice to existing applicants, as it promoted inclusivity rather than exclusion.

Candidates possessing six years of experience as of January 1, 2026, and who passed the TET by February 3, 2026, are declared eligible.

All other candidates failing these criteria stand disqualified.

The court further directed the State of Maharashtra to ensure future advertisements align closely with Recruitment Rules or, alternatively, to amend the rules to provide for more pragmatic cut-off dates relative to advertisement publication.

The Writ Petitions and Interim Applications were disposed of accordingly.