1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. The instant Writ application has been preferred by the petitioners for grant of Grade-1 scale to the petitioners from the date of their respective joining and further Grade-II, Grade-IV in view of the Arun Sinha Judgment (Annexure-3 Series).

3. Briefly stated, the petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers in the District of Ranchi, who were appointed in the year 2000 and 1997 respectively on compassionate ground. They were sent for in service training, result of which was published in years 2008 and 2002 in their individual cases. According to them they are entitled for promotion to Grade-I from the date of their joining as they have acquired necessary Teachers' Training Qualification during the course of their services. The petitioners have relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Arun Sinha & ors. Vrs. State of Jharkhand in W.P.(S) No. 638 of 2006 and the judgment passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 214 of 2008 preferred by the State of Jharkhand against the said judgment.

4. The case of the petitioners is that the delay in acquisition of the Teachers' Training Qualification was not on account of their fault. The petitioners have been given Scale of grade I in the year 1997 & 2000, respectively; however, even after completion of about 15- 18 years of their service, till date no promotion has been granted and they have been compelled to work in Grade-I scale.

Hence this Writ application.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the present writ application, the petitioners have been granted Grade-I from the date of joining and Grade-II after the completion of 12 years of service. He further submits that the petitioners have not been considered for Grade-IV promotion. He further submits that vide Office Order dated 11.06.2025 (Annexure-A to Supplementary Couter-Affidavit dated 13.06.2025), the petitioners are granted Grade-IV provisionally but till date no final promotion and the benefits of the said promotion/fixation have been extended.

6. He further submits that now the respondents are coming with new plea that for the purpose of promotion, the petitioners have to obtain/qualify TET examination.

                  He contended that the TET qualification has been introduced first time in the year 2012 for appointment of Assistant Teachers and as such, it cannot be applied retrospectively, therefore, the case of petitioners for promotion is to be considered in the light of 1993 Teachers' Promotion Rule.

                  Learned counsel lastly submits that for the aforesaid facts and reasons, a direction be issued to extend the benefits as prayed in the instant writ application.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents by referring to its Counter affidavits submits that petitioners have already been promoted in Scale II after completion of 12 years of services.

8. He further submits that in the recent judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has considered the fact regarding Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualifications and the non-compliance by the petitioners in submitting requisite documents despite repeated requests. In the case of Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust Vrs. the State of Maharashtra & Others(2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912), the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is a mandatory minimum qualification for all teachers teaching Classes I to VIII in non- minority schools, regardless of their length of service. As such, no relief should be granted to the petitioners.

9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after going though the documents annexed with the respective affidavits, the sole issue emerges to be decided by this Court:-

                  “Whether passing of the T.E.T examination is mandatory for the in- service teachers recruited prior to enactment of the R.T.E Act aspiring for getting promotion ? ”

10. For this issue, it is necessary to refer the recent judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust Vs State of Maharashtra and Others(supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in so far 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 a period of 2 years from date in order to continue in service and further 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. For brevity, the relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below:

                  “VIII. ORDER ON APPLICABILITY OF THE TET TO IN-SERVICE TEACHERS

                  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.

                  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 Supplied

11. In View of the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust (supra) and also in the factual scenario; no relief can be granted to these petitioners.

12.    Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed.