Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. In the first Writ Petition No.2993 of 2026, filed by 46 Petitioners, Prayer Clauses (a) and (b), are as under :
“(a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, directions, order directing the Respondents to hold and declare that only the teachers eligible as on last date of submission of form as per advertisement dated 29.9.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 are entitled to appear for the qualifying exam conducted by the Respondent No. 3 on 3.2.2026 and 4.2.2026 for the posts of Cluster Heads in Zilha Parishad all over the State of Maharashtra;
(b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus and may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 3 to publish only the results of the candidates who have cleared TET test as on last date of submission of forms for qualifying exams as per advertisement dated 29.9.2025;”
3. In the second Writ Petition No.3888 of 2026, filed by 28 Petitioners, Prayer Clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d), read as under :
“(a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other writ, directions, order and call for records and all the documents in relation to the notification dated 13.03.2026 issued by the Respondent No. 3 and may be pleased to quash and set aside the notification dated 13.03.2026.
` (b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, directions, order and may be pleased to hold and declare that the notification dated 13.03.2026 issued by Respondent No. 3 is illegal.
(c) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, directions, order and may be pleased to hold and declare that the Respondent No. 3 is not entitled to allow the teachers who do not meet the eligibility criteria as per the Advertisement dated 29.09.2025 to appear for the examination conducted by the Respondent No. 3 on 03.02.2026 and 04.02.2026 for promotion to the post of cluster head in Zilla Parishad all over the State of Maharashtra;
(d) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus and may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 3 to publish only the results of the candidates who have cleared TET test as on last date of submission of forms for qualifying exams as per advertisement dated 29.09.2025;”
4. In the third Writ Petition No.4011 of 2026, the 26 Petitioners have put forth Prayer Clauses (a), (b) and (c) as under :
“(a) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that Clause 4.5 of Advertisement dated 29th September 2025 is unconstitutional and ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.
(b) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or any other writ, directions, order directing the Respondents to hold and declare that only the teachers who are possessing requisite qualifications as mentioned in the body of the Petition i.e. cleared TET Paper II on or before 01.01.2026 are eligible and qualified to participate in the selection process and also promotion to the posts of cluster head.
(c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate Order and direction directing the Respondents Authorities to hold and declare that only those teachers who are possessing requisite qualifications as mentioned in the body of the Petition i.e. cleared TET Paper II on or before 01.01.2026 are eligible and qualified to participate in the selection process and also promotion to the posts of cluster head.”
5. In the fourth Writ Petition No.4147 of 2026, the nine Petitioners have put forth Prayer Clauses (a), (b) and (c), as under :
a. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other writ, directions, order and call for records and all the documents in relation to the notification dated 13.03.2026 issued by the Respondent No. 3 and may be pleased to quash and set aside the notification dated 13.03.2026.
b. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, directions, order and may be pleased to hold and declare that the notification dated 13.03.2026 issued by Respondent No. 3 is illegal.
с. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, directions, order and may be pleased to hold and declare that the Respondent No. 3 is not entitled to allow the teachers who do not meet the eligibility criteria as per the Advertisement dated 29.09.2025 to appear for the examination conducted by the Respondent No. 3 on 03.02.2026 and 04.02.2026 for promotion to the post of cluster head in Zilla Parishad all over the State of Maharashtra;”
6. All these Petitions pertain to the holding of the qualifying examination viz. the Limited Department Competitive Examination (herein after referred to as the ‘LDCE’) for seeking promotion to the post of Cluster Head (Kendrapramukh). In the second Petition, the Petitioners have prayed that the notification dated 13.03.2026 issued by Respondent No.3, may be quashed and set aside. In the third Petition, the Petitioners have sought a declaration that clause 4.5 of the advertisement dated 29.09.2025, be declared unconstitutional and ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the last Petition, the Petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside, the notification dated 13.03.2026.
7. In all these Petitions, there are intervention applications filed on record. More or less, these Applicants have taken sides with different Petitioners. Some of them have prayed similar directions as like those put forth by the Petitioners and some have prayed for a direction that the cutoff date be declared as 01.01.2026.
DATES AND SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
8. The dates and sequence of events, relevant to the issue before us, are as under :-
(a) The Right to Education Act, 2009 was introduced in the year 2009. On 31.03.2010, the Central Government declared the National Council for Teachers Education (‘NCTE’).
(b) On 13.02.2013, the Teacher Eligibility Test (‘TET’) was made compulsory for teachers in the State of Maharashtra. This is commonly know as MHTET or MTET. The TET conducted by the Central authority is commonly known as CTET.
(c) The Government Resolution dated 13.02.2013, has undergone several amendments by several Government Resolutions and lastly, by the Government Resolution dated 24.08.2018, TET was confirmed as being a compulsory qualification.
(d) The Government Resolution dated 24.08.2018 was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.1745 of 2020. Vide Judgment dated 11.06.2021, the validity of the Government Resolution was upheld and the Petition was dismissed. It was held that TET is a mandatory qualification. Since the Petitioners desired to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court, status quo granted earlier was continued.
(e) In Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).8300 of 2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order on 05.07.2021 and continued the status quo granted by this Court.
(f) The State Government issued a Government Resolution on 01.12.2022 superseding earlier Government Resolutions and declaring that 50% of the promotional posts of Cluster Head, would be filled in by a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). The educational qualifications were prescribed in Clause 5.1 and TET was not a requirement.
(g) An advertisement dated 05.06.2023 was published by the State of Maharashtra for conducting the LDCE to the extent of filling up 50% on the post of Cluster Head by promotion, by virtue of the Government Resolution dated 01.12.2022. TET was not a prescribed qualification.
(h) The Recruitment Rules were modified on 18.07.2025 and Clause 8A came to be inserted. The relevant Clause is 8-A 1(2) (A & B) and the promotion policy was declared to be based purely on merit. A candidate must possess six years of service experience and the cut-off date for qualifying was the first day of January of the year in which the advertisement was published. However, TET was not added to the requisite qualifications.
(i) Guidelines for filling in the post of Cluster Head (Kendrapramukh) were issued on 29.08.2025. Clause 3(B) prescribes the essential qualification and TET is not mentioned as an eligibility qualification.
(j) The Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered a Judgment on 01.09.2025 in the case of Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912. We would be adverting to this Judgment extensively in the Paragraphs to follow.
(k) In the meanwhile, the advertisement for holding the TET examination was published on 11.09.2025.
(l) Pursuant to the recruitment advertisement dated 05.06.2023, the State Government could not conduct the recruitment process for the Cluster Head posts. The State Government, therefore, issued a fresh advertisement on 29.09.2025 setting forth Clause 4.5 which indicates that TET was a mandatory qualification. In Clause 8.2, it was provided that those who had tendered their applications pursuant to the advertisement dated 05.06.2023, would also be considered for recruitment.
(m) In view of the above, a confusion arose as to which should be the cut-off date, i.e., 01.01.2025 or 10.11.2025 which was the last date mentioned in the advertisement dated 29.09.2025.
(n) Two sets of Petitioners preferred Writ Petition No.13519 and 13522 of 2025 before this Court. The State Government tendered a corrigendum dated 04.11.2025 before this Court and declared that 01.01.2026 would be the cut-off date. Based on this corrigendum, both the Petitions were disposed off.
(o) In the meanwhile, the provisional result for the MTET- 2025 was declared on 16.01.2026 and the final result was declared on 03.02.2026.
(p) The online LDC examination for the various categories for recruitment to the posts of Cluster Heads, was conducted on 03.02.2026 and 04.02.2026 in three sessions. 46068 candidates tendered online applications and 38558 actually appeared for the online examination.
(q) The result of the Cluster Head examination was declared on 13.03.2026.
(r) On 13.03.2026, the Maharashtra State Examination Council published a circular, informing the candidates that a link would be provided on it’s website in the near future. Candidates should visit the website and after the link is provided, details about their passing of the 1st Paper and 2nd Paper of MTET or CTET, particular categories, persons with disabilities (PwD) category etc. should be uploaded.
(s) On 20.03.2026, the said Council published one more circular and disclosed the link for entering the details and also extended the time-line from 22.03.2026 to 31.03.2026.
LEGAL POSITION AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
9. It cannot be lost sight of, that, in a group of Writ Petitions (Writ Petition No.4904 of 2020 and connected matters) filed by Sagar Gopichand Bahire & Ors. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., this Court at the Aurangabad Bench delivered a judgment on 11.06.2021, concluding that the relaxation of TET would not continue in perpetuity and the appointments made in breach of Section 23(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (in short, referred to as the ‘RTE Act’), cannot be sustained. The relaxation of acquiring the TET qualifications upto 31.03.2019, had also expired. All the Petitions were dismissed. However, status quo was granted and the interim protection was continued. These matters were brought to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.8300 of 2021 and vide order dated 05.07.2021, the status quo was continued. The said SLP is still pending and the status quo has continued. On 01.09.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered a Judgment in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust (Supra).
10. We have carefully read the judgment delivered in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the era prior to the introduction of the TET through the RTE Act and the fact situation prevailing post the TET mandate. The teachers role in imparting quality education was considered under Clause-I from Paragraph Nos.156 to 163. Under Clause-J, the applicability of the TET to the in-service teachers appointed prior to 2009 and requirement of TET qualification for promotion of teachers, was dealt with in Paragraph Nos.164 to 170.
11. While dealing with TET as a statutory requirement introduced under the RTE Act and the corresponding NCTE notifications, it was noted that this was aimed at ensuring minimum professional standards in the recruitment of elementary school teachers in line with the mandate under Section 23 of the RTE Act. Under Section 23(1) of the RTE Act, the NCTE had issued a notification dated 23.08.2010, which was subsequently amended by a notification dated 29.07.2011, laying down that passing the TET is a mandatory condition for appointment of teachers who are imparting education in classes one to eight, in schools covered by Section 2(n) of the RTE Act. It was, therefore, held as a legal position emerging from the statute that the TET is not a mere procedural requirement, but forms an essential part of the minimum qualification criteria.
12. In Paragraph Nos.169 and 170 of the Anjuman Ishaat Judgment (supra) (downloaded from 2025 INSC 1063 = 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under :
‘169. Thus, read holistically, Section 23 of the RTE Act and the NCTE notifications together establish the TET as a compulsory qualifying criterion for all teachers appointed on or after 23rd August, 2010, and as a timebound compliance obligation for those appointed earlier without the requisite qualifications. The sole object is to ensure uniform teaching standards across institutions imparting elementary education. Viewed in this light, the TET is not only a mandatory eligibility requirement but it is a constitutional necessity flowing from the right to quality education under Article 21A.
170. As a logical corollary to the above, it is axiomatic that those in-service teachers who aspire for promotion, irrespective of the length of their service, have to qualify the TET in order to be eligible to have their candidature considered for promotion.’
[Emphasis is supplied]
13. Finally, insofar as the mandate of TET as a qualification, it was concluded in Paragraph Nos.197 to 206 in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust (supra) that the TET is one of the minimum qualification that is prescribed under Section 23 of the RTE Act and it is not merely an eligibility criteria. Only upon a person obtaining such qualification, can he become eligible for appointment as a teacher. TET is a qualification and is a part of the eligibility criteria and a person seeking appointment as a teacher, must pass the TET. Only by obtaining such qualification, he would be considered eligible to be appointed as a teacher. There lies no difference as such between qualification and eligibility.
14. In Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust (supra), while dealing with the aspect of promotion, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has concluded in Paragraph Nos.215 to 219, as under :
‘215. However, we are mindful of the ground realities as well as the practical challenges. There are in-service teachers who were recruited much prior to the advent of the RTE Act and who might have put in more than two or even three decades of service. They have been imparting education to their students to the best of their ability without any serious complaint. It is not that the students who have been imparted education by the non-TET qualified teachers have not shone in life. To dislodge such teachers from service on the ground that they have not qualified the TET would seem to be a bit harsh although we are alive to the settled legal position that operation of a statute can never be seen as an evil.
216. Bearing in mind their predicament, we invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and direct that those teachers who have less than five years' service left, as on date, may continue in service till they attain the age of superannuation without qualifying the TET. However, we make it clear that if any such teacher (having less than five years' service left) aspires for promotion, he will not be considered eligible without he/she having qualified the TET.
217. Insofar as in-service teachers recruited prior to enactment of the RTE Act and having more than 5 years to retire on superannuation are concerned, they shall be under an obligation to qualify the TET within 2 years from date in order to continue in service. If any of such teachers fail to qualify the TET within the time that we have allowed, they shall have to quit service. They may be compulsorily retired; and paid whatever terminal benefits they are entitled to. We add a rider that to qualify for the terminal benefits, such teachers must have put in the qualifying period of service, in accordance with the rules. If any teacher has not put in the qualifying service and there is some deficiency, his/her case may be considered by the appropriate department in the Government upon a representation being made by him/her.
218. Subject to what we have said above, it is reiterated that those aspiring for appointment and those in-service teachers aspiring for appointment by promotion must, however, qualify the TET; or else, they would have no right of consideration of their candidature.
219. With the aforesaid modification of the impugned judgments/orders, all the appeals relatable to in-service teachers of non-minority schools stand disposed of on the above terms.’
[Emphasis is supplied]
15. It is, thus, clear as sunlight that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued a mandate with regard to the in-service candidates without TET, candidates seeking employment and those in-service candidates who desire promotion. In the present cases before us, we are concerned with the mandate of in-service teachers aspiring for appointment by promotion. Paragraph No.218 of Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust (supra) leaves no room for doubt that in-service teachers who desire appointment by promotion will have no right to be considered until they acquire the TET qualification. Without TET qualification, they can neither aspire for promotion, nor can they be considered for promotion. This also leads to an inference that those candidates who have been recently promoted will also have to acquire the TET qualification. We are informed on the basis of the record that the State Government intended to hold the exams for promotion to the post of Cluster Head in view of the advertisement dated 05.06.2023. However, no examination was ever conducted by the State Government. It is in this backdrop that the advertisement dated 29.09.2025 makes a mention of the 2023 advertisement and mandates candidates, with TET, to appear for the Cluster Head LDC examination.
16. In the backdrop of the above conclusions, that we appreciate the submissions made by the learned Senior Advocates, Mr. Apte and Mr. Katneshwarkar, that the State Government lost sight of its Recruitment Rules (referred to herein above) which categorically settled the cut-off date as being the first day of the month of January, of the year in which the advertisement has been published. The learned Senior Advocates, Mr. Apte and Mr. Katneshwarkar, and the learned Advocate, Mr. Karlekar, submit that Rule 8-A introduced in the Recruitment Rules, 1967 vide the amendment dated 18.07.2025, was not brought to the notice of this Court when Writ Petition Nos.13519 and 13522 of 2025 were brought before the Court. The Petitioners had canvassed that there are two cut-off dates, i.e., 01.01.2025 and 10.11.2025. The State Government tendered a corrigendum dated 04.11.2025 before this Court and canvassed that the cut-off date would now be 10.11.2025. On this statement/corrigendum, both the Writ Petitions were disposed off by order dated 17.11.2025.
17. Now, Mr. Apte, Mr. Katneshwarkar, and Mr. Karlekar, draw our attention to Rule 8-A which has been introduced in the Recruitment Rules and which reads as under :-
“1.- Appointment to the post of Kendra Pramukh, shall be made either,-
(1) (A) by promotion of a suitable person having eligibility for promotion on the basis of seniority from amongst the persons holding the post of Head Master of Primary School of Zilla Parishad and having not less than six years of regular and continuous service on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Primary) in Zilla Parishad; and
(B) by promotion of a suitable person having eligibility for promotion on the basis of seniority from amongst the persons holding the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Primary) in Zilla Parishad and having not less than six years of regular and continuous service on that post:
Provided that, seniority of the cadre of Trained Graduate Teacher (Primary) in Zilla Parishad shall be taken into consideration for appointment by promotion to the post mentioned in Rule 1 (1)
(2) by selection of a suitable candidate on the basis of merit from result of the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination conducted therefor, as per the policy and procedure prescribed by School Education and Sports Department, from time to time, from amongst candidates holding the post of,
(i) Trained Graduate Teacher (Primary) in Zilla Parishad and having not less than six years of regular and continuous service in that posts on the 1st of January of the year of advertisement.
(ii) Trained Teacher (Primary) in Zilla Parishad who possess essential qualification to get appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Primary), as prescribed by School Education and Sports Department from time to time and having not less than six years of regular and continuous service in that posts on the 1st of January of the year of advertisement.
2. Appointment to the post of Kendra Pramukh shall be made by promotion and selection in the ratio of 50:50.”
18. The learned Advocate, Ms. Walimbe has strenuously canvassed that the cut-off date as per the Recruitment Rules, has legal sanctity. The said cut-off date has to be read as 01.01.2025 considering the date of the advertisement being 29.09.2025. She submits that the said cutoff date cannot be ignored and it would be a mockery of the Recruitment Rules if the advertisement dated 29.09.2025 is used as a tool to ignore the cut-off date as per the recruitment rules.
19. Considering the above submissions, we find that, with the disposal of the two Writ Petitions on 17.11.2025, neither was any law laid down nor were the Recruitment Rules brought to our notice while disposing of the two Writ Petitions. These Writ Petitions were disposed off simply on the corrigendum ‘X’ dated 04.11.2025 that was placed before the Court. Had the Recruitment Rules been brought to the notice of the Court (Coram : Ravindra V. Ghuge & Ashwin D. Bhobe, JJ.), the corrigendum presented by the State would have been subjected to judicial scrutiny. The State should have assessed the implication of introducing the corrigendum, in the light of the Recruitment Rules. It is obvious that even the State did not refer to the Recruitment Rules while issuing the corrigendum.
20. The learned Advocate, Ms. Walimbe is, otherwise right in contending that the cut-off date prescribed under the rules, will have the statutory force of law in the absence of any statute under any enactment. The said cut-off date cannot be brushed aside. However, we are impelled to ponder on the aspect of prejudice being caused to around 38558 candidates who have appeared for the examination held on 03.02.2026 and 04.02.2026, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 29.09.2025 which was subjected to a corrigendum and effected only in 2026.
21. The learned Additional G.P., Mr. B. V. Samant, has canvassed that the following grounds were necessitated for extending the cut-off date and postpone the LDCE to 2026:-
a) It became clear to the State only after the judgment in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust (supra) that TET had become mandatory.
b) This mandatory condition was not within the knowledge of the candidates who had applied pursuant to the cut-off date 01.01.2025.
c) If the cut-off date would not have been postponed to 01.01.2026, thousands of candidates would have suffered and would have been disqualified.
d) The extension of the cut-off date would enable thousands of candidates to be eligible considering the TET examination held on 21.11.2025, and whose results were declared before the LDC examination.
e) The decision to extend the cut-off date was in tune with the decision to hold the LDCE in February, 2026 which was in larger public interest.
f) Such extension has not resulted in the disqualification of even a single candidate, in fact has enable thousands of candidates to appear for the LDCE which was eventually conducted in February, 2026.
g) The above said decision is not arbitrary or unreasonable. It, in fact, gives fullest effect to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust (supra).
h) The State is relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in Soumen Paul and others v/s Shrabani Nayek and others, SLP (C) no. 12660 of 2023, 2025 INSC 451. In the said case, Rule 6(2) had a peculiar provision of ‘from TIME TO TIME’, which is also found in Entry 8-A under Clause 2(ii) of Appendix IV of the ZP Recruitment Rules. The intent of the Rule is to enable more and more candidates to obtain eligibility qualifications.
(i) In paragraph 31 in Soumen Paul (supra), it is held that in exceptional and compelling cases, a departure could be made. Paragraph 31 reads as under :
“31. The principles laid down by this Court in Bhupinderpal Singh (supra) and the subsequent decisions as referred to in Rakesh Kumar Sharma (supra) and also that of the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash (supra) hold that the qualifications must be possessed as per those prescribed in the rules or the notification and in the absence of both, by reference to the last date appointed for receiving the applications. The recruitment notification dated 21.10.2022 indicated that the appellants’ will be given an opportunity, and that intendment must inure to their benefit. Under similar circumstances in Bhupinderpal Singh (supra) this Court exercised its power and jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to validate and legitimise the recruitment process. The relevant portion of the Judgment in Bhupinderpal Singh (supra) is as follows :
“13. ....... (i) that the cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; (ii) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. The view taken by the High Court is supported by several decisions of this Court and is therefore well settled and hence cannot be found fault with. However, there are certain special features of this case which need to be taken care of and justice be done by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution vested in this Court so as to advance the cause of justice.”
(emphasis supplied)
22. The learned Senior Advocates, Mr. Apte and Mr. Katneshwarkar, and the learned Advocate, Mr. Karlekar have canvassed that if the cut-off date 01.01.2025 is enforced in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, majority of the candidates would be rendered ineligible, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust (supra) on 01.09.2025. They are right in submitting that the State Government should have taken a call in the backdrop of the Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust’s Judgment which mandated TET even for in-service candidates, if they desired promotion. Since the Judgment was delivered on 01.09.2025, the State Government should have taken a pragmatic view in the backdrop of the TET advertisement dated 11.09.2025 for conducting the TET examination. The TET examination was scheduled on 23.11.2025. Naturally, the results could have been declared anytime in December, 2025. Factually, the final results have been declared on 03.02.2026. Several hundreds of candidates who have passed the LDC exams and are found to be in merit list, have all qualified in their 2025-2026 TET examination whose result was declared on 03.02.2026.
OUR ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
23. We are of the view that as we deal with the sanctity of the cutoff date prescribed in the Recruitment Rules, we cannot be oblivious to, two decisive factors. Firstly, that 38558 candidates have appeared for the examinations which have been conducted for filling up post of Cluster Head by the LDC examination. Such examination is believed to have been held for the first time after the COVID-19 pandemic on 03.02.2026 and 04.02.2026 (after six years). Secondly, the mistake or blunder committed by the State as well as the Maharashtra State Council of Examination cannot prejudice the rights of such candidates. Had the State Government taken a pragmatic view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it could have cancelled the 2025 advertisement and instead could have published a fresh advertisement in 2026. We are informed and it is undisputed by the State and the Examination Council that, by virtue of clause 12.7 of the advertisement, whoever filled in the form for the LDCE, irrespective his/her eligibility, was allowed to appear for the exam. Unqualified candidates were also allowed to appear for the exam. The State and the Examination Council should have filtered the application forms since it was its duty to eliminate ineligible applicants. It is quite obvious that neither the State nor the Examination Council have been diligent and vigilant. No scrutiny was conducted and anybody who filled in the application, was permitted to appear for the examination.
24. In view of the above, due to peculiar facts and circumstances, we are constrained to consider as to what could be the best option to ensure that grave prejudice and manifestation inconvenience is not caused to thousands of candidates, inasmuch as, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust (supra) is implemented without any excuses. We, therefore, find three possible ways of dealing with the issue before us, which are as under :
(a) Whether a strict view be taken considering the advertisement of September-2025 in the backdrop of the cut-off date 01.01.2025 mandated under the Recruitment Rules and disqualify all those candidates who do not have TET as on 01.01.2025 ?
(b) Whether, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, the advertisement of September-2025 and the corrigendum dated 04.11.2025 declaring the cut-off date for eligibility as being 01.01.2026, can be accepted for avoiding grave prejudice and manifest inconvenience to thousands of candidates ?
(c) Whether the benefit of passing the TET examination held on 23.11.2025, after the provisional results were declared on 16.01.2026 and the final results were declared on 03.02.2026, could inure to the benefit of all such candidates who appeared for the Cluster Head LDC examinations on 03.02.2026 and 04.02.2026, after the declaration of the final results of the TET ?
25. While considering either of the above options, we are obliged to be cognizant of the fact that any particular conclusion that we may arrive at, should do minimal inconvenience and hardships, and should be a pragmatic approach. If we take a strict view in the light of the Recruitment Rules treating the 29.09.2025 advertisement as the nucleus and confirm 01.01.2025 as being the cut-off date, thousands of candidates who did not have six years experience or lacked the TET qualification, will have to be disqualified even if they may have acquired the six years experience during 2025 or passed the TET examination on 03.02.2026, despite the LDC examination was postponed to 2026 and conducted on 03.02.2026 and 04.02.2026. In order to ensure that a lesser damage is caused to thousands of candidates notwithstanding the irrational and illogical approach of the State as well as the Examination Council, we need to adopt a golden mean. There is no doubt that the Recruitment Rules cannot be suppressed by a different cut-off date mentioned in the advertisement de-hors the cut-off date prescribed in the Recruitment Rules. However, if this conclusion is drawn in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, thousands of candidates will have to be disqualified, either for lacking in six years experience or TET qualification or both.
26. The corrigendum to the advertisement dated 04.11.2025 was issued by the Examination Council, which has postponed the cut-off date to 01.01.2026. This was intimated to the High Court which disposed off Writ Petition Nos.13519 and 13522 of 2025 by accepting the said statement. This was brought to the notice of thousands of candidates by the public notice dated 04.11.2025, who, therefore, carried the impression that the cut-off date is 01.01.2026 and appeared for the LDCE. This option available to the State seems to be logical for the reason that the TET examination schedule was declared on 11.09.2025, much before the advertisement dated 29.09.2025. Prior to the said cut-off date 01.01.2026, the MTET-2025 examination was conducted on 23.11.2025. Had the results been declared timely and expeditiously, the fate of these candidates would have been known prior to 31.12.2025. Nevertheless, the provisional result of MTET-2025 was declared on 16.01.2026 and the final results were declared on 03.02.2026. The LDC examination was conducted in two phases on 03.02.2026 and 04.02.2026. Results were declared on 13.03.2026.
27. In the above facts situation, minimum hardship or inconvenience or loss to the candidates could be caused if the benefit of passing the TET before the holding of the LDC examination, could be given to those who passed the TET and also have the six years experience before the date of qualifying the promotion examination. When the LDCE itself was held on February, 2026, extending the cut-off date to 01.01.2026 and holding MTET candidates who passed the said exam on 03.02.2026, appears to be reasonable, logical and pragmatic.
28. In Tej Prakash Pathak and others v/s State of Rajasthan and other, (2025) 2 Supreme Court Cases 1, it was held that the Court will be reluctant to interfere with recruitment process, provided procedure adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory, non-arbitrary and having rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. It was finally concluded in paragraph 65 (65.1 to 65.6) as under :
“65. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms:
65.1. Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies:
65.2. Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness;
65.3. The decision in K. Manjusree lays down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha³. Subash Chander Marwaha³ deals with the right to be appointed from the select list whereas K. Manjusree deals with the right to be placed in the select list. The two cases therefore deal with altogether different issues;
65.4. Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, nondiscriminatory/ non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved;
65.5. Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility. However, where the rules are non-existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps;
65.6. Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list.”
[Emphasis is supplied]
29. In Chhotu Ram v/s State of Haryana and others, (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 399, it was held in paragraph 5 as under :
“It is true that Rule 9 of the Haryana Service of Engineers Class II (Public Works Department, Irrigation Branch) Rules says that the cut-off date will be the 1st of January of the year concerned and here the cut-off date will be 1-1-1980. In a situation where a person takes an examination before the cut-off date and the result is declared after the cut-off date the abovesaid administrative order dated 23-7-1973 clarifies as to what is to be done. In our view the said clarification is not in conflict with the statutory rules, inasmuch as it only states that where by the date on which the Departmental Promotion Committee meets, the result is also declared, maybe subsequent to the cutoff date, the person must be considered to be eligible with reference to the date of the examination if the examination had been conducted before the cut-off date. We do not, therefore, see any conflict between the clarification dated 23-7-1973 and the statutory rules. Giving effect to the abovesaid clarification, it must be held that the appellant was qualified as on September 1980 when DPC met. We, therefore, order that the case of the appellant be considered on the basis that he was qualified by the cut-off date, 1-1-1980. If he is considered fit for promotion as in September 1980, he shall be given the necessary promotion and other consequential benefits. In case the Department feels that any other persons are likely to be affected in the seniority it will be open to the Department to give notice to those candidates before finalising the case of the appellant. The appeal is allowed. However, in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.”
30. In the light of the above cited reports that we have considered, what we find to be very peculiar factors in this case, at the cost of repetition, which are most relevant for us to come to a pragmatic conclusion, are as under :
(a) The Cluster Head LDC exam had not been conducted by the State for more than six years.
(b) The uncertainty as regards whether TET is an additional requirement or a qualification and whether acquiring TET would a mandate for in-service candidates for the purpose of promotion, has been put to rest by Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust (supra). It has been concluded that any candidate seeking promotion, either as an in-service candidate or by way of an applicant for the Cluster Head LDC examination, has to have qualified TET. The TET is declared to be a requisite qualification and not an additional requirement.
(c) The advertisement for holding the 2025-2026 TET examination was published on 11.09.2025.
(d) The advertisement for holding the LDC examination to the post of Cluster Head was published on 29.09.2025. The said exam was postponed to 03.02.2026 and 04.02.2026.
(e) The TET examination was held on 23.11.2025 and the provisional result was declared on 16.01.2026, and the final result was declared on 03.02.2026.
(f) Several Candidates have passed the TET examination 2025-2026, on 03.02.2026.
(g) The LDC exam was held on 03.02.2026 and 04.02.2026. The results were declared on 13.03.2026.
(h) The instant Cluster Head promotion exam has been held after six years. It was proposed to be held in 2023, which was postponed.
(i) By the 29.09.2025 advertisement, the exam was proposed to be held in 2025. Thereafter, the Examination Council and the State postponed the examination to be held in 2026 on 03.02.2026 and 04.02.2026 by publishing an advertisement in 2025 by which the cut-off date under the Recruitment Rules would have been 01.01.2025. If this date is to be maintained, thousands of candidates will have to be disqualified for lacking in TET qualifications and six years experience. Manifest inconvenience and grave hardship would be caused to them. The cut-off date 01.01.2025 would disqualify thousands of candidates and cause miscarriage of justice.
Per-contra, since the LDC examination was held in February-2026, the Examination Council and the State Government have adopted a pragmatic approach in settling the cut-off date as 01.01.2026, in order to enable more eligible candidates to appear for the exams. This would result in inclusion of eligibile candidates as on 01.01.2026, and not exclusion.
(j) As it is, the entire year 2025 has been lost and as no examination was held. Now that the examination was held in two phases in February-2026, the benefit of having the cut-off date 01.01.2026 and permitting all those MTET examinees who have already appeared for the examination on 23.11.2025 and who passed the TET on 03.02.2026, could also be granted the benefit of having taken this exam, as a special case. Without laying down in precedent and by treating this order as being a one time measure to give benefit to a larger section of the society, the ends of justice would be met. Minimal hardships and inconvenience would be caused to any of the examinees.
31. Taking a considered view of all above peculiar facts and circumstances, we find that no loss or harm could be caused to any of examinees, if the cut-off date is held to be 01.01.2026 with regard to the requisite qualifications and passing of the 2025-2026 TET examination on 03.02.2026, before the Cluster Head LDC examination. In fact, thousands of candidates would be benefited.
32. There can be an argument that some of the candidates who did not have six years experience and did not possess TET as on 01.01.2025, may not have appeared for the examination. We are circumspect on such submissions. A judicial pronouncement cannot be tailor made to satisfy each and every person. Moreover, only because more candidates would get a chance to compete in the LDCE, cannot be a ground to take a constricted view, which in our consideration, would be a pedantic approach. The examination process is continuous and we could issue directions to the State Government to conduct MTET examinations at least once a year, as also the Cluster Head LDC examinations. So also, any prejudice or hardship caused to a small section of the competitors, will be outweighed by brighter opportunities available to a large section of the candidates. Increased competition is not a ground for limiting competition by taking a pedantic view. Any other option than the one we have chosen, would cause greater prejudice and grave hardships to those who have taken the LDC examination and have qualified as per the eligibility criteria in the light of the above peculiar facts.
33. There is no dispute that, no eligibility criterion is changed. No prejudice is caused to anybody, except that competition has grown by inclusivity. All equally placed candidates are given the opportunity to appear for the LDCE. All candidates who have 6 years experience and have cleared the TET before the LDCE, would be eligible.
34. We are informed that the in-service candidates have been promoted as Cluster Head (50% promotion) purely based on seniority, in July-2025 comprised of such promoted candidates who may not have acquired the TET qualifications. Such candidates would be squarely covered by the directions in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust (supra).
35. In view of the above, we conclude as under :
(a) Without laying down any precedent and as a one time arrangement, we hold that the cut-off date for the 2025-2026 Cluster Head LDC examination, shall be 01.01.2026.
(b) Candidates who have appeared for the examination and have gathered six years experience as on 01.01.2026, would be eligible, provided they have acquired the TET qualification.
(c) Those who have six years experience as on 01.01.2026 and who have appeared for the November-2025 TET examination and have passed the TET on 03.02.2026, would be eligible.
(d) Those who gathered six years experience after 01.01.2026 or are not TET qualified, will be ineligible.
(e) All ineligible candidates in view of above Clauses (a) (b) (c) and (d), who have appeared for the Cluster Head LDC examination, shall stand disqualified. Needless to state, they are at liberty to gather the experience/TET qualification in future in the light of the directions set out in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust (supra), and would be at liberty to appear for such LDC examination in future.
We also direct that,
(f) The Maharashtra State, as well as the Maharashtra Examination Council, shall be legally obliged to ensure that, advertisements for examinations for recruitment in terms of the Recruitment Rules as regard the cut-off date as the first day of the first month of that year, should be published in close proximity with such cut-off date and the examination should be concluded preferably in the first half of each year.
OR
In the alternative, the Recruitment Rules be suitably amended and a pragmatic decision be taken to settle the cut-off date as being not earlier than three months preceding the date of the advertisement.
OR
The cut-off date be prescribed as being 1st January of the year if the advertisement is published in the first half of the year or 1st July of the year if the advertisement is published in the second half of the year.
(g) The Recruitment Rules be also amended to include MTET or CTET as a requisite qualification for Cluster Heads, and whenever applicable.
36. In view of the above, all the Writ Petitions and the Interim Applications stand disposed off.
The learned Advocate, Ms. Walimbe submits that the directions set out in the Judgment pronounced today should not be implemented.
For the detailed analysis set out in this Judgment and the endeavour made by this Court to ensure that minimal hardship and inconvenience are caused to the candidates, and that the grievances of most candidates are redressed keeping in view that the examination has been conducted after six years and that it was overdue that eligible candidates should be promoted to the post of Cluster Head, the request is rejected.
 |
This Product is Licensed to , |