Qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Shiv Kumar Pathak

   Supreme Court of India 25 Jul 2017 Binding (SC) - Landmark Judgment Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   The minimum qualifications prescribed by the NCTE under Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 are binding on all State Governments and override State-specific rules. However, the guidelines issued by NCTE regarding weightage to be given to marks obtained in the Teacher Eligibility Test are directory in nature and not mandatory requirements for State Governments. Therefore, while a State cannot lower the eligibility qualifications prescribed by NCTE or make the TET non-mandatory, it has the discretion to determine the relative weightage and importance given to TET marks vis-a-vis other selection criteria in its recruitment process, subject to maintaining reasonable standards of selection.

   On this section: Any person with minimum qualifications laid down by academic authority authorized by Central Government shall be eligible for appointment as teacher; establishes NCTE as academic authority

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. State Of U.P. vs Hira Lal Gupta, Secretary To Basic Education Govt. Of U.P.

   Supreme Court of India 25 Jul 2017 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   While the qualifications prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education under Section 23 of the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 are binding on State governments and cannot be diluted by State laws on the concurrent subject of education, the requirement for specific weightage to be given to Teacher Eligibility Test marks in the selection process is discretionary and directory in nature rather than mandatory, allowing State governments reasonable flexibility in designing selection methodologies so long as TET qualification remains a minimum requirement. States cannot fundamentally alter selection criteria in a manner that conflicts with Central guidelines on minimum qualifications, but they retain discretion in determining how weightage and other selection parameters are applied, subject to principles of fairness, non-arbitrariness, and adherence to constitutional mandate.

   On this section: Minimum qualifications for appointment as teacher shall be laid down by academic authority authorized by Central Government

   Read the full order on eCourts India

3. State Of Uttar Pradesh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh

   Supreme Court of India 25 Jul 2017 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable 2013(10) ADJ 121 (for impugned judgment)

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   The NCTE, as the academic authority under Section 23 of the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, has the authority to lay down minimum qualifications for teachers, including the mandatory requirement to pass the Teacher Eligibility Test, and these qualifications are binding on states. However, the NCTE guidelines regarding weightage to be given to TET marks in the recruitment process are directory and discretionary in nature, not mandatory, leaving states with the authority to prescribe selection methodology while maintaining the NCTE minimum qualifications as an essential eligibility criterion. The state cannot unilaterally alter the minimum qualification requirements prescribed by NCTE, but may exercise discretion in the weightage mechanism for selection within those qualifications.

   On this section: Section 23 provides that minimum qualifications must be laid down by academic authority authorized by Central Government; governs eligibility and terms of service of teachers

   Read the full order on eCourts India

4. State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Shiv Kumar Pathak

   Supreme Court of India 25 Jul 2017 Binding (SC) with Limited Precedential Scope Reportable 2013(10) ADJ 121

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   While the minimum qualifications for teachers prescribed by NCTE are binding on States under the statutory authority granted under Section 23 of the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and Sections 12 and 12A of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993, the guidelines issued by NCTE regarding weightage to be given to Teacher Eligibility Test marks in the recruitment process are directory in nature and not mandatory. States are required to ensure candidates possess NCTE-prescribed minimum qualifications including passing the TET examination, but States retain discretion in designing selection procedures and ranking mechanisms for candidates who have qualified the TET, provided such procedures are consistent with maintaining standards and do not arbitrarily exclude qualified candidates.

   On this section: Prescribes that persons with minimum qualifications laid down by academic authority authorized by Central Government shall be eligible for teacher appointment; Court interpreted this as granting NCTE binding authority

   Read the full order on eCourts India

5. State Of U.P. vs Shiv Kumar Pathak

   Supreme Court of India 25 Jul 2017 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable 2013(10) ADJ 121 (Allahabad High Court judgment)

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   While qualifications prescribed by NCTE are binding on States as NCTE is the authorized academic authority under the RTE Act operating within the framework of law made by Parliament on a concurrent subject where Central law prevails per Article 254, the requirement to give weightage to TET marks in the recruitment process, as prescribed in NCTE guidelines dated 11th February 2011, is a directory rather than mandatory requirement. A State may make different provisions for the selection procedure and weightage while ensuring that candidates meet the minimum qualifications prescribed by NCTE. However, any change in selection criteria must be made prospectively through proper procedure and cannot be applied retrospectively to invalidate a completed selection process or cancel advertisements already issued, especially when such change occurs during the pendency of litigation and affects the vested rights of candidates who had applied in good faith.

   On this section: Section 23 requires any person possessing minimum qualifications as laid down by an academic authority authorized by Central Government to be eligible for appointment as a teacher. The Court interpreted this as delegating authority to NCTE to lay down these minimum qualifications, which are binding on States.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

6. Vishwanath vs The State Of Uttarakhand

   Supreme Court of India 05 Mar 2025 Persuasive (Other HC) with Binding Direction on Immediate Parties Marked not reportable 2025 INSC 365

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Persons who obtained the 18-month D.El.Ed. diploma through the National Institute of Open Schooling via ODL mode under the central government's one-time scheme, and who were in employment as on August 10, 2017, are entitled to be considered for appointment as Assistant Teachers in schools run by state governments, as such diploma constitutes a valid equivalent qualification under the 'two years or equivalent' requirement of state service rules. The state government cannot reverse its administrative approval of such candidates merely because the selection process has advanced; instead, it must consider and appoint eligible candidates within reasonable timelines without reopening already-finalized selections.

   On this section: The court examined the statutory mandate that all teachers possess minimum qualifications of a two-year diploma or equivalent. The 2017 Amendment made this requirement retrospectively applicable from March 31, 2015, giving a four-year grace period for in-service untrained teachers. The court acknowledged that Section 23(2) mandated minimum qualifications but recognized the validity of the one-time scheme as a reasonable implementation of this statutory objective.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.