Common Judgment:
Rajnish R. Vyas, J.
(1) In all these petitions, the principal challenge is to the communication dated 14/05/2026, issued by the Director of Education, whereby the respective Education Officers were directed to prepare a fresh seniority list by restricting eligibility for promotion only to those teachers who had passed the TET/CTET on or before 01/09/2025. Consequential prayers are also made for the quashing of the seniority list.
(2) Heard the learned respective counsels at length and with their consent the matters are being finally decided at the admission stage. In order to resolve the controversy involved and since the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Kaptan for the respondent has argued that acquiring qualification would put the junior employee in a higher place in the seniority list, the following illustration is given :-
| Employee | Appointment | Passed |
| TET/CTET | ||
| A | 2012 | 2020 |
| B | 2016 | 2018 |
(4) In contrast, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Akshay Naik strongly opposed the contentions. He argued that seniority and promotion are distinct concepts and simply acquiring a qualification does not negate seniority.
(5) On this point a brief discussion of the recent judgments is necessary. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anjuman Ishaat E Taleem Trust v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1912 more particularly in paragraphs 214 to 218 has observed as under :-
“214. Per the detailed discussions above and resting on the same, we hold that the provisions of the RTE Act have to be complied with by all schools as defined in Section 2(n) of the RTE Act except the schools established and administered by the minority – whether religious or linguistic – till such time the reference is decided and subject to the answers to the questions formulated above under section VII. Logically, it would follow that in-service teachers (irrespective of the length of their service) would also be required to qualify the TET to continue in service.
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.”
(6) Thus, it is crystal clear that acquisition of TET/CTET qualification is now the eligibility for being appointed on the post of ‘Teacher’. The Apex Court has categorically stated that in service Teachers recruited prior to enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (RTE Act), 2009 and having more than five years of service remaining before attaining the age of superannuation are concerned, they shall be under an obligation to qualify the TET/CTET within two years from the said date, in order to continue in service. Further the aspiring candidates for appointment by promotion must qualify the TET/CTET. Thus, holding TET/CTET qualification would be a condition precedent not only for the appointment, but also for the promotion.
(7) The co-ordinate Bench at Aurangabad had also dealt with the aforesaid aspect in Writ Petition No.2785/2026 and connected petitions in the case of Javid Khan Salimuddin Khan and others vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others decided on 29/04/2026 and paragraphs 4.25 and 4.27, answer the issue which is reproduced as under :-
“4.25 The alternate prayer to promote the teachers as per seniority and to grant two years period to clear TET/CTET after promotion alike appointments, is beyond the observations and the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has thoughtfully excluded the process of promotion from the grace period of two years i.e. offered for the in-service teachers for continuation as teacher. As such, a teacher must possess TET/CTET for promotion on the date of initiation of the promotion process; and there cannot be ex-post facto TET/CTET qualification compliance.
4.27 Consequently, we answer the framed issues and hold that:
(1) Teachers until qualify TET/CTET, cannot reserve a right for promotion in the promotion process, and even though the TET/CTET examination has been conducted prior to the initiation of the promotion process;
AND
(2) TET/CTET qualification shall not be retrospectively applicable for the purpose of promotion.”
(8) Thus, until Teachers qualify TET/CTET cannot reserve the right for promotion in the promotion process even though the TET/CTET examination has been conducted prior to the initiation of the promotion process.
(9) It is in this background, learned Senior Counsel Mr.Naik has challenged the communication dated 14/05/2026, by which the cut-off date i.e. 1st September for the possession of TET/CTET qualification for the purposes of promotion is fixed.
(10) We would like to state that the cut-off date was fixed on the basis of G.R. dated 01/08/2019 issued by General Administration Department, which prescribed 1st September as a general cut-off date for promotion in State Government service.
(11) If the communication dated 14/05/2026 is considered, then it is clear that it is in violation of the order passed by Division Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.2785/2026 along with connected petitions, as the Bench has categorically held that a teacher must possess TET/CTET for promotion on the date of initiation of the promotion process. Thus, the requirement of possessing/acquiring TET/CTET qualification is on the date of initiation of promotion process and not prior thereto. The impugned communication if given effect to, will consider only those teachers who possessed/acquired qualification on or before 1st September which is much prior to initiating promotion process. Such an arrangement runs contrary to the findings rendered in Javid Khan’s case (supra) and is thus liable to be quashed and set aside.
(12) At this stage, it is necessary to consider the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel Mr Kaptan for respondents. These arguments state that once the requisite qualification is acquired, a person, even if junior, will be placed higher on the seniority list.
(13) The argument fails to appeal to us as the seniority and consideration for promotion are two different fields. The seniority is normally determined from the date of joining, subject to the relevant rules. The acquisition of requisite qualification in the case in hand will open the promotional avenues only. Thus, it can be said that acquisition of eligibility can not rewrite seniority unless the statutory rules expressly provide so.
(14) By now it is a well-settled principle that there is no fundamental right to promotion and an employee has only the right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the applicable rules. Here, as already said, the cut-off date which is relied upon in the impugned communication is based on the G.R. dated 01/08/2019, and the same loses its importance in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anjuman Ishaat (supra) read with High Court’s judgment in Javid Khan (supra).
(15) The respective counsels argued that since there is no clear-cut date prescribed for the commencement of the promotion process, the Court should clarify the stage at which the promotion process commences. At this juncture , it is necessary to mention here that judgment passed in case of Anjuman Ishaat (supra) was subjected to review by Review Petition (Civil) Diary No.53434/2025 in Civil Appeal No.1385/2025, which with certain modifications was dismissed. Paragraph 34 of the order dated 29/05/2026 which is reproduced below would also help in settling the controversy.
“34. Needless to observe, it shall also be the endeavour of the respective states and the competent authorities to conduct the TET periodically, and preferably twice every year, interspersed with an approximate period of six months between the successive examinations, so as to afford eligible teachers a reasonable opportunity to comply with the statutory requirement.”
(16) The said observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court make it clear that the respective States and competent authority would make an endeavour to conduct the TET examination periodically and preferably twice every year. The term ‘year’ would normally mean a year commencing from 1st January and ending with 31st December.
(17) In the light of above and considering the difficulties which are likely to be faced by the teachers, in our considered view, if cut-off date is fixed as 1st January, it will not only address all issues, but will be also beneficial to the students and the teachers. By fixing cut-off date as 1st January, the seniority list will be published which even otherwise is prepared on that day, and out of them the teachers who have acquired TET/CTET qualification will be entitled to participate in promotional process, it is so because by that time, the examination of TET/CTET will be concluded and results declared. The promotional process will be initiated on 1st January and should be completed by 31st March. The list of successful candidates should be published thereafter and in the month of April or by 15th May of every year the order granting promotion can be issued, so that there would be uniformity in the procedure in the entire State and same would also give breathing time to the teachers for joining the promotional post in the next academic session.
(18) The aforesaid observations are made to avoid uncertainty after the Apex court’s decision in Anjuman’s case. The observations would ensure uniform implementation throughout the state. To avoid uncertainty and conflicting practises among the local authorities, the observations are necessary as an interim arrangement, which can be treated in the form of direction, until the government frames, the appropriate guidelines.
(19) The Hon’ble Apex Court while deciding the Review Application has also altered and extended timeline granted for in-service teachers to acquire TET qualification from 02 (two) to 03 (three) years i.e. the qualification has to be obtained by 31st of August 2028 instead of 31st of August 2027 as originally directed.
(20) At this stage, we must address another aspect raised during the course of argument. It is informed to the Court that, given cut-off date of 1st September, several local bodies have already completed the promotion process. Consequently, any order passed in the current petitions would also impact their rights. We would like to clarify that cases where the promotion process is already completed will not be affected by this order. However, the teachers who otherwise were eligible to participate in promotion process, but for the impugned communication could not, if are promoted in subsequent process, their seniority in promotional cadre should be fixed on the basis of the inter se seniority in the feeder cadre. Accordingly, following order is passed :-
O R D E R
A) The impugned communication dated 14/05/2026 is quashed and set aside.
B) It is clarified that cases where the promotion process is already completed will not be affected by this order.
C) It is reiterated that the employees who holds qualification of TET/CTET would fall in zone of consideration for promotion. Further the teachers who otherwise were eligible to participate in promotion process, but for the impugned communication could not, if are promoted in subsequent process, their seniority in promotional cadre should be fixed on the basis of the inter se seniority in the feeder cadre.
D) The State Government is directed to reconsider Government Resolution dated 01/08/2019, in view of the discussion made in paragraph 17 of the judgment and if necessary issue fresh Government Resolution prescribing cut-off date as 1st January of every year.
E) Petitions are accordingly, partly allowed and disposed of.
1. At this stage Ms. Preeti Walimbe, learned counsel for intervenors/respondent Nos.5 to 32 in W.P.No.4434/2026, makes a request to this Court to stay the effect and operation of the order passed by this Court.
2. The request made by the intervenors/ respondents is also opposed not only by the AGP but also by the petitioners.
3. We would like to clarify that by a detailed judgment and considering the law laid down, so also the difficulties which are likely to be faced by the employees, we have passed the order.
Hence, the request to stay the order is rejected.