TET Qualification Must Exist On Date Of Initiation Of Promotion Process; Subsequent Clearance Cannot Be Applied Retrospectively: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court has held that teachers seeking promotion must possess TET/CTET qualification on the date of initiation of the promotion process and that subsequent clearance of the examination cannot be applied retrospectively to claim inclusion in an ongoing promotion process. The Court observed that merely appearing for the TET/CTET examination during the pendency of the promotion process does not create any vested right to seek consideration for promotion.
A Division Bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Ajit B. Kadethankar was hearing a writ petition filed by Assistant Teachers challenging the ongoing promotion process for the posts of Cluster Heads conducted by Zilla Parishad, Beed. The petitioners had not cleared TET/CTET either on 1 September 2025 or on 23 December 2025, when the promotion process was initiated through the publication of a draft seniority list of qualified teachers. The petitioners had, however, appeared for the CTET examination conducted in February 2026 and contended that since the final promotion list had not been finalized, successful candidates from the February 2026 examination should also be considered for promotion.
The Court examined Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the notification dated 23 August 2010 issued by the National Council for Teacher Education prescribing TET as a mandatory qualification for teachers. The Court observed that in-service teachers aspiring for promotion must qualify TET in order to be eligible for consideration for promotion.
The Court further noted that while the Supreme Court had granted a grace period of two years to certain in-service teachers for continuation in service, no such relaxation was granted in matters relating to promotion.
The Court observed that the promotion process had already been initiated on 23 December 2025 and that it was an undisputed fact that the petitioners did not possess TET/CTET qualification either on 1 September 2025 or on the date of initiation of the process. The Court held that the petitioners were attempting to seek retrospective application of the CTET result by curing the deficiency in eligibility after commencement of the process.
Rejecting the contention that the interim order created any right in favour of the petitioners, the Court observed that the order merely directed the authorities to temporarily hold the process to enable examination of the issues involved and did not confer any substantive right. The Court further held that the promotion process cannot be stalled indefinitely, nor can the rights of candidates already falling within the zone of promotion be adversely affected.
“… 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,” the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition and permitted the respondent authorities to continue with the promotion process.
Case Title: Vaijenath Haridas Ambad v. State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition No. 2737 of 2026]
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 244