Back
Rules Teacher's Appointment Without TET Valid If Cleared Before
In a significant judgment reinforcing the protective framework of the (RTE Act), the has ruled that an Assistant Teacher appointed without the cannot be removed if he acquired the qualification before the statutory deadline of .
The Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla allowed an filed by Mohd. Mustafa Siddiqui, setting aside a Single Judge order that had dismissed his . The Court directed his with full and 6% .
The Road to Termination and Disapproval
Mohd. Mustafa Siddiqui was appointed as Assistant Teacher at Bal Bari Junior High School, Kasya, Kushinagar on , under the . The appointment was approved by the District Basic Education Officer. At that time, the did not prescribe TET as a mandatory qualification. Siddiqui cleared the TET on .
On , the Manager of the unilaterally terminated Siddiqui's services, citing vague allegations of and without specifying any forged document. The District Basic Education Officer disapproved the termination on , exercising power under , which requires prior written approval for any teacher's removal. The Management never challenged this disapproval.
Despite the disapproval, Siddiqui was neither allowed to resume duties nor paid his salary. He filed a seeking continuance and arrears. In its , the Management for the first time raised the ground that Siddiqui did not possess TET at the time of appointment. The Single Judge dismissed the on , holding that TET was an essential qualification from the date of the notification on , and that subsequent acquisition could not validate the initial appointment.
Court Rejects Introduction of New Grounds
The Division Bench strongly condemned the Management's attempt to introduce a new ground in its that was absent from the . Relying on the 's decision in , the Bench held that an administrative order must stand on the reasons given in it and cannot be improved later through affidavits.
"The introduction of a new ground to defend the initial cannot be permitted, as every order would be attempted to be salvaged by introducing new grounds and the basic character of the initial order would be changed, frustrating the power of exercise by the Constitutional Courts."
The Court noted that the dated did not mention lack of TET; it only alleged . The Management abandoned that defence and set up an entirely new case.
Under Section 23 of RTE Act
The Court examined the interplay between the notification dated (making TET mandatory) and the of the RTE Act. The proviso grants teachers who did not possess minimum qualifications at the commencement of the Act a period of five years—until —to acquire them.
The State Government had issued a Government Order on , implementing the notification while granting the same five-year window to existing teachers. The Court observed that the Single Judge failed to consider this protective provision.
"If the notification dated 23.08.2010 issued in pursuance of the Act, 2009 being a Central legislation is binding on the State Government and that could be a cause/foundation for termination of services, there is no reason why the available in the same Act, particularly the first proviso appended to Section 23(1) therein, would not come to the petitioner's rescue."
The Court held that the respondents could not —treating the notification as binding for termination while denying the protection available under the same Act. Since Siddiqui had cleared TET well before , his appointment was saved.
and
The Bench found that the Management's conduct after the disapproval of termination—including writing to the District Magistrate seeking recall of the order—amounted to . It held that the refusal to allow Siddiqui to work despite the statutory disapproval was arbitrary and violative of .
On the question of , the Court noted that neither side had pleaded whether Siddiqui was gainfully employed during the 12-year period he was kept out. Distinguishing this case from ordinary wrongful termination, the Court observed:
"It is a case where deliberately the order disapproving the termination has been dishonored by keeping the petitioner out of employment. Hence it cannot be equated with wrongful termination/dismissal, where there may be at least an iota of , but here the arbitrariness is writ large, defeating the statutory procedure and orders of the competent authority passed under the rules."
Instead of quantifying , the Court ordered payment of the entire with 6% , holding that Siddiqui was entitled to his legitimate salary as he had been arbitrarily prevented from working.
Final Decision
The Division Bench allowed the , set aside the Single Judge's order, and directed the District Basic Education Officer, Kushinagar to ensure Siddiqui's forthwith with all consequential monetary benefits, including with at 6%, to be paid within two months. The Court declared:
"The inescapable conclusion is that the initial appointment of the petitioner is saved by the virtue of the statutory amendments brought in the Rules, 2011 read with the first proviso to Section 23 of the Act, 2009 and the intention of the expressed therein."
The judgment reinforces that teachers appointed before the implementation of TET requirements are entitled to the protective window provided by the RTE Act, and that employers cannot circumvent statutory safeguards by introducing new grounds after the fact.
