Full Text
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1620 OF 2026
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 17785 of 2024)
ZUBAIR. P … APPELLANT
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 30768 of 2025)
JUDGMENT
1. Leave granted.
2. Both these appeals are preferred by the appellant, challenging the common impugned judgment and order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Writ Appeal No. 733 of 2024 and Writ Appeal No. 769 of 2024, whereby the High Court affirmed the rejection of approval to the appointment of the appellant as Higher Secondary School Teacher (Economics) on the ground that he did not possess the requisite State Eligibility Test qualification in the concerned subject.
3. As the issue in both these appeals is the same and as the Division Bench of High Court has passed a common judgment and order, both these appeals are being disposed of together by the present order.
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. The brief facts of the case are as under:
4.1. The appellant had entered the service as an Upper Primary School Teacher on 01.11.2002 and was promoted as High School Teacher on 15.07.2004. Thereafter, on 15.07.2021, he was appointed as a Higher Secondary School Teacher (hereinafter referred as “HSST”) (Economics) by the competent authority. At the time of his appointment as HSST, the appellant was having a Bachelor’s degree in Economics, a Master’s degree in Economics and a B.Ed. in Social Sciences and State Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred as “SET”) qualification in Malayalam.
4.2. On the other hand, respondent no. 4, entered the service as an Upper Primary School Assistant on 01.11.1997 and was promoted as High School Assistant (English) from 16.07.2005 onwards. She was having a degree in B.A. (Economics), M.A. (Economics) and B. Ed. (Social Sciences) and SET qualification in Economics.
4.3. Aggrieved by the appointment of the appellant, respondent no. 4 raised objections alleging that the appellant neither had mandatory SET qualification in Economics as prescribed under Rule 6.2(24) of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules (hereinafter referred as “the Rules”) nor he had ten years of high school teaching experience to fall within the exemption of mandatory SET under under Rule 10(4) of Chapter XXXII of the Rules.
4.4. Acting upon the objections, respondent-authorities vide its order dated 18.06.2022 declined to approve the appointment of the appellant on the ground that the appellant neither had SET qualification in Economics nor he had ten years of experience as a High School Teacher to avail the exemption of mandatory SET qualification in the concerned subject. Reliance was placed on the Government Order dated 18.01.2021 which clarified that it is mandatory to pass the SET exam in the concerned subject to become a Higher Secondary school teacher.
4.5. Being aggrieved by the decision of the respondentauthorities, the appellant preferred a Writ Petition (C.) NO. 20130/2022 seeking quashing of order dated 18.06.2022 and direction to respondent-authorities to approve his appointment as HSST with effect from 15.07.2021.
4.6. On the other hand, respondent no. 4 also preferred a Writ Petition (C.) No. 11190/2023 seeking direction to respondent-authorities to consider her claim for appointment as HSST (Economics).
4.7. Learned Single Judge vide common judgment and order dated 14.05.2024 dismissed the petition preferred by the appellant and allowed the petition preferred by the respondent no. 4. Accordingly, it was declared that the appellant is not qualified for appointment to the post of HSST (Economics) in a vacancy that arose on 01.06.2021 in the concerned school. Further, the learned Single Judge gave direction to the respondent-authorities to consider the claim of respondent no. 4 for appointment as HSST (Economics) in the school w.e.f. 01.06.2021 with all consequential benefits, if respondent no. 4 is found entitled.
4.8. Appellant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, preferred Writ Appeal No(s). 733 of 2024 and 769 of 2024.
4.9. Vide the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed both the appeals filed by the appellant and thereby confirmed the judgment and order rendered by the learned Single Judge.
4.10. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeals.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
5. Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Haris Beeran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, challenged the impugned judgment, which upheld the rejection of the appointment of the appellant as HSST (Economics) on the ground that he did not possess a SET qualification in Economics and made multifold submissions as under:
5.1. It is submitted that the appellant is qualified for the post of HSST (Economics) under the Rules. The appellant holds the Bachelor’s Degree in Economics, Master’s Degree in Economics and B.Ed. in Social Sciences. Further, the appellant is having SET qualification in Malayalam.
5.2. Learned Counsel referred to Rule 6.2(24) of Chapter XXXII of the Rules which expressly requires the postgraduate degree and B.Ed. to be in the concerned subject. However, so far as SET is concerned, it is provided that the concerned candidate must have passed SET for the post of HSST conducted by the Government of Kerala or by an agency authorized by the State Government. Thus, it is submitted that the said rule does not specify any subject requirement for the SET qualification and the deliberate omission of subject-specific language in the SET qualification demonstrates the intent of the legislature that the SET qualification need not be subject-specific.
5.3. Learned Counsel, therefore, contended that the High Court in the impugned judgment erroneously interpreted Rule 6.2(24)(iii) of Chapter XXXII of the Rules and erred in reading into the Rule a condition which the Rule itself does not contain, thereby impermissibly adding words to a statutory provision and such an approach is contrary to settled principles of statutory interpretation. It is further submitted that the High Court wrongly relied on Government orders and circulars prescribing subject-specific SET, as executive instructions cannot amend, override or supplement statutory rules.
5.4. It is also contended that the interpretation adopted by the High Court contradicts the long understanding and the application of Rule 6.2(24) of the Rules across educational institutions in Kerala.
5.5. Learned Counsel further submitted that Rule 10(4) of Chapter XXXII of the Rules provides exemption from SET for certain candidates based on other qualifications like NET, Ph.D., M.Phil., without requiring these qualifications in any specific subject. This reinforces that SET is intended as a general eligibility benchmark, not a subject-exclusive qualification. In addition, teachers with ten years of approved teaching certificates are also exempted from SET, regardless of the subject of their experience. It is submitted that the appellant was appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant on 01.11.2002 and promoted as High School Assistant (English) on 15.07.2004, whereas, the respondent no. 4 was promoted as High School Assistant (English) from 16.07.2005.
5.6. Learned Counsel for the appellant, therefore, urged that though the appellant was qualified to be appointed as HSST, his appointment was not approved by the authority and, therefore, the appellant had preferred the captioned writ petition. Learned Counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High court have committed serious error by interpreting provisions contained in Rule 6.2(24) of Chapter XXXII of the Rules.
5.7. Learned Counsel, therefore, urged that the impugned judgment passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside, and appropriate direction be issued to the respondentauthorities to appoint the appellant on the post in question by granting necessary approval.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 1 (State of Kerala)
6. Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, submitted that the impugned judgment is legal, valid and based on correct appreciation of facts and law, warranting no interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. Following submissions were made on behalf of respondent no. 1:
6.1. It is submitted that the appellant was appointed by transfer as HSST (Economics) on 15.07.2021. Accordingly, the Manager of the respondent-school submitted a proposal for the approval of the appointment of the appellant before the competent authority. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4 submitted a complaint in the office of Regional Deputy Director regarding the appointment and qualification of the appellant. It was pointed out by the respondent no. 4 that the appellant was not qualified for the post of HSST (Economics), as the appellant does not have SET in the relevant subject or ten years of high school teaching experience.
6.2. It is submitted that the appellant admittedly possesses BA and MA in Economics, B.Ed. in Social Studies and SET qualification in Malayalam, not in Economics and Rule 6(2)(24)(iii) of Chapter XXXII of the Rules requires SET in the concerned subject, namely Economics, for appointment as HSST (Economics). The appellant further does not possess ten years of approved High School teaching service, having only 9 years, 10 months and 14 days of such service after excluding periods of deputation and leave without allowance, and therefore, was not entitled for the exemption under Rule 10(4) of Chapter XXXII of the Rules.
6.3. The State submitted that the Government Order dated 18.06.2022 (G.O.(Rt) No. 3672/2022/G.Edn) rejecting approval of the appointment of the appellant was passed strictly in accordance with the Rules and pursuant to directions issued by the High Court. The subsequent grant of lower scale salary to the appellant was only an interim arrangement in compliance with court directions and does not confer any right of approval or regular appointment.
6.4. It is therefore submitted that the appellant lacks the essential statutory qualifications, the High Court has correctly interpreted Rules 6 and 10 of Chapter XXXII of the Rules.
6.5. Learned counsel therefore urged that the High Court has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and order. Thus, it is submitted that the present appeals are liable to be dismissed.
7. Mr. Zulfiker Ali P.S., learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3, submitted that under the Kerala Education Act and the Rules, the Manager is the statutorily recognised appointing authority and has exclusive control over staff management. The Manager has the inherent right to appoint teachers by transfer from the feeder category of High School Assistants (HSA) on a seniority-cum-suitability basis. Following submissions were made on behalf of respondent no. 3:
7.1. It is submitted that upon the vacancy of HSST (Economics) on 01.06.2021, the Manager validly appointed the appellant, who was the senior-most qualified teacher in the school, strictly in accordance with the Rules.
7.2. Learned Counsel submitted that a literal and harmonious reading of Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of the Rules would reveal a deliberate distinction regarding qualifications. While the Master’s and B.Ed. degrees must be in the concerned subject, the rule merely mandates a pass in the SET without any subject-specific restriction. It is further submitted that the omission of subject-specific language for SET is intentional and indicates that the rule-making authority did not intend SET to be confined to the subject of appointment.
7.3. It is submitted that the appellant holds a Post Graduation in Economics and a B.Ed. in Social Science and an SET in Malayalam, satisfies the statutory eligibility for HSST (Economics) because the SET is intended as an assessment of general teaching aptitude rather than a repetitive assessment of subject expertise, which is already
7.4. Learned Counsel further submitted that respondent NO. 4 possessing SET in Economics would not supersede the appellant’s seniority and valid qualifications as per the statutory rules.
7.5. Reliance is placed on Geetha v. State of Kerala, (2012 (1) KLT 829), wherein it was held that general teaching service is the criteria for exemption under Rule 10(4) of the Rules and that the Rules should not be re-written to insert subject-specific restrictions where none exist. It is asserted that across Kerala, numerous HSSTs appointed with SET in subjects different from their teaching subject are presently in service, reflecting a consistent administrative interpretation of Rule 6. It is submitted that disturbing this settled understanding would jeopardise the careers of countless teachers and unsettle long-standing appointments.
7.6. Reliance is placed on the Full Bench judgment of the High Court of Kerala in Manager, MPVHS School v. Girija, (2003) 1 KLT 935, to contend that executive orders or circulars, including the Government letter dated 18.01.2021, cannot override or supplement the statutory provisions of the Rules.
7.7. It is therefore submitted that the respondent no. 3 acted strictly within the four corners of the Rules in appointing the appellant and the impugned judgment, by importing a subject-specific requirement for SET, rewrites the statutory rule and is legally unsustainable.
7.8. It is therefore urged that the impugned judgement and order is liable to be set-aside and it is prayed that the appointment of the appellant made by the Management to be upheld.
8. Ms. Anne Mathew, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4, supported the interpretation adopted by the High Court that Rule 6(2)(24)(iii) of Chapter XXXII of the Rules mandates passing of SET in the concerned subject for appointment as HSST and made multifold submissions as under:
8.1. Learned Counsel submitted that to ensure maintenance of academic standards at the Higher Secondary level, the legislature decided to conduct SET examination for the post of HSST for the concerned subject as mandated in Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of the Rules. Thus, the interpretation placed by the High Court is purposive, contextual and consistent with the scheme of the Rules and does not amount to adding words to the statute. Reliance is placed on Union of India v. Pushpa Rani, (2008) 9 SCC 242, to argue that insisting on SET in the concerned subject is a policy choice aimed at maintaining academic standards and the courts should not dilute or re-interpret qualification requirements contrary to the understanding of the rule-making authority.
8.2. It is contended that the Government Letter dated 18.01.2021 clarifying the requirement of SET in the concerned subject is legal, valid and within the competence of the rule-making authority. Reliance is placed on Kunjunjamma v. State of Kerala, (2015) 11 SCC 440, to support the validity of Government action and clarifications relating to SET qualification requirements and to contend that the Government’s interpretation of Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of the Rules is within its competence and cannot be lightly interfered with. It is further submitted that the appellant never challenged the validity of the said Government Letter before the High Court and therefore cannot dispute its applicability in the present proceedings.
8.3. It is further submitted that the appellant possesses SET only in Malayalam, not in Economics and further, the appellant does not have ten years of approved High School teaching service, having only 9 years, 10 months and 14 days of eligible service after excluding periods of deputation and leave without allowance. Consequently, the appellant is ineligible both under Rule 6(2)(24)(iii) (absence of SET in Economics) and under Rule 10(4) of Chapter XXXII (failure to satisfy service-based exemption) of the Rules.
8.4. It is submitted that respondent no. 4 is fully qualified under the statutory rules, possessing BA and MA in Economics, B.Ed. in Social Science and SET qualification in Economics. Respondent no. 4 attended the interview, produced all requisite documents and was wrongfully overlooked when the Manager appointed the appellant, despite her superior statutory eligibility.
8.5. Learned Counsel referred to the prospectus issued for conducting the SET examination in July 2021, a copy of which is placed on record at Page 162 of the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4. Clause 2 of the said prospectus provides for the scheme of the test which includes two papers and further provides that Paper II shall be a test based on the subject of specialisation of the candidate at the Post Graduate (PG Level).
8.6. The Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in Girija (supra), is distinguished by learned counsel, arguing that the said decision dealt with Chapter XXXI of the Rules (High School Assistants), not Chapter XXXII of the Rules (Higher Secondary Teachers) and the interpretative issue in the said decision concerned B.Ed. subject requirement, whereas, the present case concerns SET for HSST, a distinct cadre with higher academic standards.
8.7. It is submitted that accepting the interpretation of the appellant would undermine academic standards in Higher Secondary education, permit appointment of teachers lacking subject-specific eligibility, unsettle settled appointments and encourage avoidable litigation.
8.8. Learned Counsel, therefore, urged that the High Court has correctly interpreted the Rules, the appellant is statutorily ineligible and the directions to consider respondent no. 4 for appointment are lawful and just under Rule 6.2(24) of Chapter XXXII of the Rules. The present appeals are therefore liable to be dismissed and the impugned judgment deserves to be upheld.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and having carefully perused the material on record, the Rules as well as the prospectus of the SET examination, it would emerge that the appellant had entered the service as an Upper Primary School Teacher on 01.11.2002 and was promoted as High School Teacher on 15.07.2004 and, thereafter, on 15.07.2021, the appellant was appointed as HSST (Economics) by the competent authority. It would further reveal that respondent no. 4 entered the service as an Upper Primary School Assistant on 01.11.1997 and was promoted as High School Assistant (English) from 16.07.2005 onwards.
10. Now, it is not in dispute that the appellant possesses the Bachelor’s Degree in Economics, Master’s Degree in Economics, B.Ed. in Social Sciences and passed SET in Malayalam. It is also not in dispute that respondent no. 4 possesses a degree in B.A. (Economics), M.A. (Economics), B.Ed. (Social Sciences) and passed the SET examination in Economics.
11. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual aspects, the question which is posed for our consideration is whether Rule 6(2)(24)(iii) of Chapter XXXII of the Rules mandates that the SET qualification must be in the concerned subject only for appointment as HSST or in any subject would suffice for eligibility, and if so, whether the appellant satisfies the said requirement or qualifies for exemption under Rule 10(4) of Chapter XXXII of the Rules.
12. The facts being undisputed, the controversy turns entirely on the correct interpretation of the statutory rules governing eligibility. Chapter XXXII of the Rules governs appointment to the cadre of Higher Secondary School Teachers, a cadre distinct from High School Assistants and governed by a separate statutory framework.
13. The answer of the question posed before us will depend on the interpretation of Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of the Rules which prescribes the essential qualifications for appointment as HSST. The said Rule is reproduced as under:
(3) unless he possesses the qualifications prescribed in the corresponding entry in column (4) there of.
┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ there of. │ │ Sl. Category Method of Qualifications │ │ No. Appointment │ │ (1) (2) (3) (4) │ │ (21) xxxxxxx By Transfer (i) Master’s Degree in the │ │ and by direct concerned subject will │ │ recruitment not less than 50% marks │ │ from any of the │ │ (22) xxxxxxx │ │ Universities in Kerala or │ │ a qualification recognised │ │ as equivalent thereto in │ │ (23) xxxxxxx the respective subject by │ │ a University in Kerala. │ │ (24) Economics │ │ (25) xxxxxxx (ii) (1) B.Ed. in the │ │ concerned subject │ │ acquired after a regular │ │ (26) xxxxxxx course of study from any │ │ of the Universities in │ │ Kerala or a qualification │ │ recognised as equivalent │ │ (27) xxxxxxx thereto by a University in │ │ Kerala. │ │ (2) In the absence of │ │ persons with B.Ed. │ │ Degree in the concerned │ │ subject, B.Ed. Degree │ │ acquired in anyone of the │ │ subject under the │ │ concerned Faculty as │ │ specified in the │ │ Acts/Statutes of any of │ │ the Universities in │ │ Kerala. │ │ (3) In the absence of │ │ persons with B.Ed. │ │ degree as specified in │ └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx Economics xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx By Transfer and by direct recruitment
(i) Master’s Degree in the concerned subject will not less than 50% marks from any of the Universities in Kerala or a qualification recognised as equivalent thereto in the respective subject by a University in Kerala. (ii) (1) B.Ed. in the concerned subject acquired after a regular course of study from any of the Universities in Kerala or a qualification recognised as equivalent thereto by a University in Kerala. (2) In the absence of persons with B.Ed. Degree in the concerned subject, B.Ed. Degree acquired in anyone of the subject under the concerned Faculty as specified in the Acts/Statutes of any of the Universities in Kerala. (3) In the absence of degree as specified in