New Delhi: The Supreme Court, in a significant ruling on service matters, has reinstated two Assistant Teachers from Uttar Pradesh, six years after they were terminated for not possessing the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualification at the time of their appointment.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran held that the termination was "erroneous" because the teachers had successfully acquired the TET qualification well within the extended deadline provided under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act).

The judgment provides crucial relief to educators who, though unqualified at the exact moment of joining, met the legal requirements within the grace period stipulated by subsequent amendments.

The Factual Background

The appellants, Uma Kant and another, were selected for the post of Assistant Teacher at a recognized and aided junior high school in Kanpur Nagar, UP. Their selection was approved by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA) on March 13, 2012, and they subsequently joined the post on March 17, 2012.

At that time, an August 23, 2010 notification by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) had already made passing the TET a minimum qualification for teachers.

One of the appellants cleared the TET on November 25, 2011 (before the appointment), while the other cleared it on May 24, 2014 (after the appointment).

On July 12, 2018, after six years of service, the BSA terminated both teachers. The sole ground for their termination was that they did not possess the TET qualification at the time of their initial appointment in 2012.

The teachers challenged this decision, but their writ petitions were dismissed by both a Single Judge and a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the termination. The teachers then moved the Supreme Court.

The Legal Crux: An Extended Deadline

The turning point in the case was an amendment to Section 23(2) of the RTE Act, which came into effect on August 9, 2017.

This amendment provided a crucial window for teachers who were already "appointed or in position as on March 31, 2015." It stipulated that any such teacher who did not possess the minimum qualifications (like TET) must acquire them within a four-year period, setting a final deadline of March 31, 2019.

Supreme Court's Analysis

The appellants argued that since they had both undisputedly cleared the TET by May 2014, they were well within the statutory deadline of March 31, 2019. The State's counsel fairly admitted the teachers had qualified by 2014 but maintained that the qualification was mandatory at the time of appointment.

The Supreme Court bench firmly sided with the teachers. The Court noted that on the date of their termination (July 12, 2018), the appellants were, in fact, fully qualified.

"We, therefore, fail to see as to how the appellants can be said to be unqualified on the date of their termination i.e., July 12, 2018, when undisputedly they had already qualified the TET by March 24, 2014," the bench observed. (Note: The judgment uses the May 24, 2014 date in one place and March 24, 2014 in another, but both are well before the 2019 deadline).

The Court found that the High Court had "proceeded on the premise that since the appellants did not possess a TET pass certificate at the time of their appointment, so their termination, after working for six years, need not be interfered with."

The Supreme Court ruled this view to be incorrect, as the 2017 amendment specifically allowed existing teachers to remedy this exact qualification deficit before the 2019 cut-off.

The Final Order

Setting aside the High Court's orders and quashing the termination order from 2018, the Supreme Court directed the respondents to "forthwith reinstate the appellants to the post of Assistant Teacher."

While the bench clarified that the teachers would not be entitled to back-wages, it ordered that they be reinstated with "continuity of service and all other consequential benefits, including seniority, etc."

Case Title: Uma Kant And Another Vs State of UP And Others

Judgment Date: October 31, 2025

Bench: Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran

JUDGEMENT COPY : https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/39329/39329_2024_1_1501_65372_Judgement_31-Oct-2025.pdf