Facts Of The Case:
The case concerns the appellants, Uma Kant and another, who were appointed as Assistant Teachers at Jwala Prasad Tiwari Junior High School, Kanpur, in March 2012. Their appointments were made pursuant to an advertisement from July 2011. At the time of their appointment, the mandatory Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualification, introduced by a National Council for Teacher Education notification in August 2010, was not held in Uttar Pradesh. The first TET in the state was conducted in November 2011. Appellant No. 2 cleared it in November 2011, and Appellant No. 1 cleared it in May 2014. In July 2018, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari terminated their services on the sole ground that they did not possess the TET certificate at the time of their initial appointment in 2012. The appellants challenged this termination before the High Court, arguing that a 2017 amendment to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act provided a grace period until March 2019 for in-service teachers appointed before March 2015 to acquire the minimum qualifications. Both the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court dismissed their petitions, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Procedural History:
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Shields Lawyers: Police Can’t Summon Advocates as Witness
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the 2017 amendment to the RTE Act provided a specific grace period, mandating that every teacher appointed or in position as on 31st March 2015 must acquire the minimum qualifications, including TET, by 31st March 2019. The Court found that the appellants had indisputably cleared the TET by 2014, well before this statutory deadline. It held that the termination of their services in 2018, solely for not possessing the TET certificate at the time of their initial appointment in 2012, was erroneous and contrary to the amended legal provision. The Court noted that the sole ground for termination was the lack of TET qualification, a deficiency which had been rectified within the permitted timeframe, and thus no other valid basis for termination existed.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the High Court. The Court quashed the termination order dated 12th July 2018 and directed the respondents to reinstate the appellants to their posts as Assistant Teachers with continuity of service and all consequential benefits, including seniority. However, it clarified that the appellants would not be entitled to back wages. The reinstatement was ordered on the finding that the appellants had validly acquired the mandatory TET qualification within the grace period provided by law, making their termination unlawful.
Case Details:
Case Title: Uma Kant and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others Citation: 2025 INSC 1273 Appeal Number: (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 22164 of 2024) Date of Judgment: October 31, 2025 Judge/Justice Name: Justice B.R. Gavai