SET Must Be Passed In The Concerned Subject For HSST Appointment Under Kerala Education Rules: Supreme Court

Affirming concurrent findings of the Kerala High Court, the Bench upheld the declaration that the appellant was ineligible for appointment as HSST (Economics) and that the competing candidate, who possessed SET in Economics, was entitled to consideration in accordance with the Rules.

The Court was hearing civil appeals challenging a common judgment of the High Court affirming rejection of approval to an HSST (Economics) appointment on the ground that the selected candidate lacked a SET qualification in the concerned subject.

A Bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi examined the statutory framework governing Higher Secondary appointments alongside the structure and object of the SET examination, and observed: “When Rule 6.2(24)(iii) of Chapter XXXII of the Rules is read with the prospectus of the SET examination, particularly Clause 2 of the prospectus, it can be safely said that the candidate is required to pass SET in the concerned subject to qualify for the appointment to the post of HSST in the said concerned subject. Even though in Rule 6.2(24)(iii), the words ‘in the concerned subject’ are missing, the said Rule cannot be interpreted in isolation, and the textual omission has to be inferred from context, purpose and scheme of the provision”.

Background

The dispute arose from an appointment to the post of HSST (Economics) in an aided Higher Secondary School. The selected candidate possessed postgraduate qualifications in Economics, but had cleared the SET examination in a different subject. A competing teacher holding the SET qualification in Economics challenged the approval of the appointment, asserting that statutory eligibility required subject correspondence.

The approving authority declined recognition of the appointment, holding that the SET qualification must align with the subject of appointment and that the exemption threshold based on service experience was not satisfied. Parallel writ proceedings culminated in a declaration that the appointment lacked statutory compliance, which was affirmed in appeal.

The matter reached the Supreme Court in civil appeals.

Court’s Observation

The Apex Court framed the controversy as one of statutory interpretation, whether Rule 6(2)(24)(iii) of Chapter XXXII requires a candidate to pass the SET in the subject corresponding to the HSST post. While the clause did not expressly repeat the words “concerned subject,” the Bench held that statutory interpretation cannot rest on isolated textual omission divorced from legislative context and purpose.

Reading the Rule harmoniously with the structure of the SET examination, the Court observed that SET is inherently subject-specific, with Paper II testing postgraduate-level expertise in the chosen discipline. Allowing qualification in an unrelated subject would defeat the legislative objective of ensuring subject competence in Higher Secondary teaching.

The Bench emphasised purposive construction, holding that statutory provisions must be interpreted to advance their object and avoid results inconsistent with the scheme of the enactment. The government clarification mandating subject-specific SET was treated as reflective of the statutory framework rather than an impermissible addition.

Addressing exemption arguments, the Court held that service-based relaxation applies only where the statutory threshold is satisfied. Since the appellant fell short of the prescribed experience period, exemption was unavailable.

The Court further clarified that precedent governing lower teaching cadres could not control the interpretation of Higher Secondary qualifications, which operate within a distinct statutory regime designed to maintain elevated academic standards.

Concluding that eligibility flows from correspondence between the SET qualification and the subject of appointment, the Bench held that possession of SET in an unrelated discipline cannot substitute for statutory compliance.

The Court accordingly concluded that “the High Court has not committed any error in affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge, wherein it was declared that the appellant is not qualified for appointment to the post of HSST (Economics) in a vacancy that arose on 01.06.2021 in the concerned school and respondent no. 4 is eligible for appointment as HSST (Economics) in the school.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed that passing the SET in the concerned subject is mandatory for HSST appointment.

The appellant was declared ineligible for the Economics post, while the competing candidate’s entitlement to consideration stood confirmed. Directions were issued to implement the findings within the statutory framework, with clarification that no recovery of salary already paid would be effected.

The appeals were dismissed.

Cause Title: Zubair P v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 151)

Appearances

Appellant: Nikhil Goel, Senior Advocate, with Advocates Haris Beeran, Azhar Assees, Anand B. Menon, Rizwana R. Raj, Shaswat Jena and Radha Shyam Jena, AOR.

Respondents: Advocates Harshad V. Hameed, AOR, with Dileep Poolakkot, Ashly Harshad, Mahabir Singh, Dr Arunender Thakur, Anshul Saharan; Zulfiker Ali P.S., AOR, with Augustine Peter, Faisal M. Aboobacker, Shifaz R. Dheen, Lebina Baby; Anne Mathew with P.S. Sudheer, AOR, assisted by Rishi Maheshwari, Bharat Sood, Jai Govind M.J. and Jashan Vir Singh.

Click here to read/download Judgment