TET qualification is a mandatory prerequisite for promotion and cannot be acquired retrospectively during an ongoing process.

The petitioners are Assistant Teachers serving in Zilla Parishad schools in Beed district who aimed for promotion to the post of Cluster Head.

A promotion process was initiated on December 23, 2025, based on a draft seniority list of teachers holding Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) or Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) qualifications.

The petitioners did not possess TET/CTET qualifications at the time the process commenced.

While the process was ongoing, they appeared for the CTET in February 2026 and approached the High Court, which granted an interim stay on finalising the seniority list on March 13, 2026.

During the pendency of the petition, some petitioners cleared the CTET and sought inclusion in the promotion list retrospectively.

1. Whether candidates who did not qualify for 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 promotion

Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), which mandates minimum qualifications for teachers.

NCTE Notification dated August 23, 2010, which established passing the TET as a mandatory condition for appointment.

Precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 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 promotion, regardless of the date of initial recruitment.

The doctrine that recruitment includes promotion as a method of inducting persons into public service, as established in K. Narayanan v. State of Karnataka.

The acquisition of mandatory qualifications must precede the initiation of the promotion process.

The Supreme Court in the Anjuman case did not provide any "grace period" for promotions, unlike the two-year window granted for in-service teachers to maintain their current posts.

The petitioners' argument—that the interim stay created a right to include their subsequent CTET results—was rejected on the grounds that promotion processes involve multiple stages and must be based on the eligibility status existing at the time of initiation (December 23, 2025).

Allowing retrospective application of a qualification obtained mid-process would render the uniform quality standards mandated by the RTE Act nugatory.

The court dismissed the Writ Petition and discharged the Rule, vacated the interim stay, and directed the Respondent authorities to continue with the promotion process for those who were qualified at the time of initiation.