TET Qualification Non-Negotiable For Teacher Promotions: Bombay High Court Rejects Plea For Retrospective Inclusion Of Newly Qualified Candidates
The Bench holds that eligibility must exist at the commencement of the promotion process as subsequent qualification cannot cure initial disqualification under the RTE Act.
The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench has reaffirmed that the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) or Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) is a mandatory prerequisite for the promotion of Assistant Teachers. The Court clarified that a candidate must possess the requisite qualification on the date the promotion process is initiated; otherwise, they possess no vested right to be considered for such advancement.
Furthermore, the Court rejected the plea for a "grace period" for promotions, distinguishing between the two-year window allowed for continuing in service and the immediate requirement of merit-based qualification for higher responsibilities.
Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar while hearing a batch of petitions filed by teachers from the Beed district, “…The Honorable Supreme Court has thoughtfully excluded the process of promotion from the grace period of two years that is 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”.
Advocate Suvidh S. Kulkarni appeared for the petitioners and A. M. Phule, AGP appeared for the respondent.
The brief facts of the case involved 21 Assistant Teachers who had not cleared the TET/CTET by September 1, 2025, or by December 23, 2025, when the Zilla Parishad, Beed initiated the promotion process for the post of Cluster Head.
Although the petitioners appeared for the CTET in February 2026 while the process was ongoing, they were excluded from the draft seniority list of qualified teachers. The petitioners initially obtained a limited interim order on March 13, 2026, which directed the authorities not to finalize the promotion list while results were awaited.
During the pendency of the litigation, some petitioners cleared the examination and sought retrospective inclusion in the seniority list to secure their promotion.
The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Anjuman-Ishaat-E-Taleem v. State of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 1063, which established TET as a constitutional necessity for quality education under Article 21A Constitution of India.
The Bench noted that promotion is a multi-stage process and eligibility must be tested at its inception. It specifically noted that the Supreme Court purposefully did not provide a grace period for promotions, making the qualification a condition precedent. The Court concluded that an interim stay does not create a vested right, nor can it be used to circumvent the law of the land.
“…its abundantly clear that the candidates who hold TET/CTET are the only Teachers qualified for promotion”, it noted.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition and all connected civil applications, thereby discharging the rule. The Bench explicitly vacated all previous interim orders and authorised the respondent authorities to proceed with the pending promotion process based on the original criteria.
Cause Title: Vaijenath Haridas Ambad & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:20430-DB)
Petitioners: Suvidh S. Kulkarni, Advocate.
Respondents: A.M. Phule, AGP, Prashant D. Suryawanshi, Ankush N. Nagargojem Advocates.