Supreme Court Stays Appointment Of School, College Teachers Lacking Statutory Qualifications
Supreme Court issues notice in PIL challenging statutory schemes that provide for the provincialisation of teachers and employees of educational institutions.
The Supreme Court has directed that no teacher shall be appointed or absorbed in any school or college without possessing the requisite qualifications prescribed under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, and the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
A Chief Justice Surya Kant led bench has ordered, "As an interim measure, it is directed that no teacher shall be appointed/absorbed in schools or colleges unless such candidates possess the requisite prescribed qualification under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, NCTE Act, and then UGC Act."
The plea challenged the statutory scheme providing for the provincialisation of teachers and employees of venture educational institutions, insofar as it permits their induction into substantive government service without undergoing a fair, transparent and competitive recruitment process. It contended that such a mechanism is unconstitutional and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before law and equality of opportunity in public employment.
"Why they are appointing unqualified people? How are they dealing with the future of students?" CJI Surya Kant asked today.
In response, Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar replied, "They now are calling them tutors. Quality of education... the quality of education is suffering!"
The plea has sought to declare that the provisions of the Assam Education (Provincialization of Services of Teachers and Re-organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017, to the extent they permit provincialization of persons who do not possess the minimum qualifications prescribed under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder, are unconstitutional and void as being violative of Articles 14, 21A and 254 of the Constitution of India.
Court has further been urged to declared that the provisions relating to the provincialisation of Tutors, insofar as they permit persons not possessing the minimum qualifications prescribed by Parliamentary enactments to impart classroom instruction in Government and provincialised educational institutions, are unconstitutional and unenforceable.
Also, a direction has been sought to the State to undertake a comprehensive review of all persons provincialised under the Assam Venture Educational Institutions Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 and the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017, for the limited purpose of verifying whether they possess the qualifications prescribed under the applicable Parliamentary enactments and statutory Regulations.
The Plea sought directions to the Respondents to ensure that all future appointments to Government teaching posts are made only through a fair, transparent, merit- based and competitive recruitment process consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the statutory framework governing teacher qualifications. Accordingly, the petition will be heard on a later date.
Cause Title: Rajesh Chauhan and Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana
Hearing Date: September 8, 2026