The Bombay High Court has clarified that teachers in minority educational institutions cannot be denied appointment solely for lacking TET qualification while the Supreme Court deliberates on whether such qualifications are mandatory under the RTE Act. The order balances institutional autonomy with statutory compliance, offering a conditional pathway for employment pending final adjudication.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Petitioner No.1, Shri Khan Mohammad Kaif Masud, was selected and appointed as an Assistant Teacher at Millat Urdu Primary School, a minority educational institution managed by Petitioner No.2, the Cidco Education and Welfare Sanstha. The appointment proposal was rejected by Respondent No.3, the Administrative Officer of the Municipal Corporation Nashik Education Department, vide order dated 27.01.2026. The sole ground for rejection was that Petitioner No.1 did not possess a valid TET (Teacher Eligibility Test) qualification.
The rejection order also referenced Writ Petition No.416 of 2012, which had previously been decided by this Court but is now sub judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Key Facts
- Petitioner No.1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher on a contractual basis in accordance with the school’s management decision.
- The appointment proposal was submitted to the Education Department for formal approval.
- The Administrative Officer rejected the proposal on 27.01.2026 on the ground of non-possession of TET qualification.
- Petitioner No.1 had not appeared for or cleared the TET at the time of application.
- The issue of whether TET is mandatory for teachers in minority institutions is currently pending before the Supreme Court in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912).
- The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 01.09.2025, held that RTE Act provisions apply to all schools except minority institutions, but referred the matter to a Larger Bench for final determination.
- This Court, in Stephie Sushant Ransing v. State of Maharashtra (12.11.2024), had previously directed similarly placed teachers to tender undertakings acknowledging that their employment is subject to the final outcome of the Supreme Court’s pending decision.
Procedural History
- 27.01.2026: Administrative Officer rejected appointment proposal for lack of TET qualification.
- 08.04.2026: Writ Petition No.3339 of 2026 filed before the Bombay High Court.
- 08.04.2026: Court made rule returnable forthwith and heard the matter finally by consent of parties.
- 08.04.2026: Petitioner No.1 submitted an undertaking in line with the Stephie Sushant Ransing order.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners:
- The rejection of appointment on the sole ground of non-possession of TET is arbitrary and violates the principle of status quo as maintained by the Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court has not yet held TET mandatory for minority institutions; therefore, denial of appointment is premature.
- The undertaking tendered by the petitioner satisfies the condition laid down in Stephie Sushant Ransing and should suffice for conditional approval.
For the Respondents:
- The TET qualification is a statutory requirement under the RTE Act.
- Approval cannot be granted without compliance with mandatory eligibility norms.
- The rejection was in accordance with established policy and the pending Supreme Court matter does not override statutory obligations.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the impugned order dated 27.01.2026, direction for grant of approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.1, and issuance of Shalarth ID.
The Legal Issue
Whether the refusal to approve the appointment of a teacher in a minority educational institution, solely on the ground of non-possession of TET qualification, is legally sustainable while the Supreme Court has referred the question of TET’s applicability to such institutions to a Larger Bench.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912), which explicitly held that the RTE Act’s provisions, including TET, do not apply to minority institutions until the Larger Bench decides the issue. The petitioner further relied on this Court’s own order in Stephie Sushant Ransing, which directed that teachers without TET may continue in service subject to an undertaking that they will abide by the Supreme Court’s final ruling. The petitioner submitted a duly executed undertaking, thereby satisfying the condition precedent for conditional employment.
For the Respondent
The respondents contended that TET is a mandatory qualification under the RTE Act and that no appointment can be approved without it. They argued that the Supreme Court’s reference to a Larger Bench does not nullify statutory requirements and that the Administrative Officer acted within his powers by enforcing eligibility norms. They further submitted that granting approval without TET would set a precedent undermining the statutory framework.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the Supreme Court’s judgment in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust and noted that Paragraph 214 explicitly states that minority institutions are exempt from RTE provisions, including TET, until the Larger Bench delivers its final opinion. The Court emphasized that the Supreme Court’s order was not a temporary injunction but a recognition of the constitutional autonomy of minority institutions under Article 30.
The Court then turned to its own order in Stephie Sushant Ransing, which established a clear procedural framework for managing such cases during the pendency of the Supreme Court’s decision. The Court reproduced paragraphs 12 to 19 of that order, which mandated that:
"...lack of approval would not be a ground for their managements to terminate their services and such candidates will have to be continued in employment in the light of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (of maintaining status quo)."
The Court held that the same logic applies to new appointments. Denial of approval on the ground of non-possession of TET, while the legal position remains sub judice, violates the principle of status quo and the equitable balance struck by the Supreme Court and this Court.
The Court noted that Petitioner No.1 had already tendered the undertaking as required under Stephie Sushant Ransing, thereby acknowledging the binding nature of the future Supreme Court ruling. The undertaking, the Court held, is sufficient to protect the interests of the State and the public education system.
The Court further observed that the Administrative Officer’s refusal was based on a rigid interpretation of eligibility norms without accounting for the overriding constitutional and judicial context. Such an approach, the Court stated, is inconsistent with the spirit of the Supreme Court’s referral and this Court’s own procedural guidance.
The Verdict
The petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 27.01.2026 rejecting the appointment of Petitioner No.1 is quashed and set aside. The Administration Officer shall pass a formal conditional order of approval within three weeks from today. The Management may submit a proposal for Shalarth ID within 30 days of such approval, and the Competent Authority shall grant the Shalarth ID within 30 days of receipt. Petitioner No.1 is bound by the undertaking tendered and shall not withdraw it. He shall make all efforts to appear for and clear the MTET or CTET at the earliest. The undertaking remains irrevocable and the petitioner shall be subject to any final direction issued by the Supreme Court.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Conditional Appointments Are Legally Valid Pending Supreme Court Ruling
- Practitioners may now argue that denial of appointment to teachers in minority institutions solely for lack of TET is unsustainable while the Supreme Court’s final decision is pending.
- The Stephie Sushant Ransing undertaking is a legally recognized mechanism to preserve employment rights without violating statutory norms.
- Education authorities must process appointment proposals from such teachers, subject to the undertaking, and cannot withhold approval on TET grounds alone.
Undertakings Are Binding and Non-Negotiable
- Teachers who submit undertakings cannot later claim entitlement to permanent appointment or benefits if the Supreme Court rules against minority institutions.
- The undertaking serves as a legal safeguard for both the teacher and the State, ensuring compliance with future rulings without immediate disruption.
- Institutions must ensure undertakings are properly documented and filed with the Education Department to avoid future litigation.
Procedural Timelines Must Be Followed
- The Court’s directive to grant approval within three weeks and Shalarth ID within 30 days establishes enforceable timelines.
- Delays by administrative officers beyond these periods may now be challenged as non-compliance with judicial directions.
- Management must proactively submit proposals within the stipulated time to avoid further delays in regularization.
