In a significant ruling on teacher eligibility, the Supreme Court of India has held that candidates seeking appointment as Higher Secondary School Teachers (HSST) must clear the State Eligibility Test (SET) in the same subject they intend to teach.
Dismissing the appeals filed by Zubair P., the Court affirmed that a SET qualification in an unrelated subject does not meet statutory requirements under the Kerala Education Rules.
Read also:- Bombay HC Disposes Unmarried Woman’s Abortion Plea, Cites Supreme Court Ruling on MTP Rights
The case arose from a dispute over appointment to the post of HSST (Economics) in a Kerala school.
Background of the Case
Zubair P., the appellant, began his career as an Upper Primary School Teacher in 2002 and was later promoted as a High School Teacher. In July 2021, he was appointed as HSST (Economics) by transfer.
He held:
- B.A. in Economics
- M.A. in Economics
- B.Ed. in Social Sciences
- SET qualification in Malayalam
However, another teacher, who also held degrees in Economics and had cleared SET in Economics, objected to his appointment. She argued that the Kerala Education Rules required SET in the concerned subject - in this case, Economics.
The State authorities declined to approve Zubair’s appointment. The Kerala High Court upheld that decision, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Refuses to Quash Forgery Case Linked to 1963 Land Deed, Orders Police Prob
The Legal Question Before the Court
The core issue was simple but crucial:
Does Rule 6(2)(24)(iii) of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules require a candidate to pass SET specifically in the subject of appointment?
The rule mentions passing the SET for HSST but does not explicitly say “in the concerned subject.”
Zubair’s counsel argued that since the rule did not clearly include those words, SET in any subject should suffice.
Court’s Observation
The bench examined the rule alongside the SET prospectus and the purpose behind introducing the exam.
The judges noted that the SET examination itself is conducted subject-wise. Paper II of the exam tests candidates in their postgraduate specialization. That means candidates choose a specific subject while appearing for SET.
Reading the rule in isolation, the Court said, would defeat its purpose.
Citing principles of statutory interpretation, the bench observed that a rule must be read in context and in line with its objective. The purpose of SET, the Court said, is to ensure subject competence at the Higher Secondary level.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Flags Flawed Tree-Felling Notices, Closes Pune Coconut Trees Case
The judgment recorded:
“A statutory provision cannot be interpreted in isolation… the textual omission has to be inferred from context, purpose and scheme.”
The Court further said accepting the appellant’s interpretation would lead to “manifestly absurd results” - allowing someone tested in one subject to teach another specialized subject at the higher secondary level.
On Exemption Claim
Zubair also claimed exemption from SET under Rule 10(4), which allows teachers with ten years of approved High School teaching service to be exempt.
However, the Court found that he had completed only 9 years, 10 months and 14 days of eligible service - short of the required ten years.
That argument, the Court held, could not succeed.
Distinction from Earlier Judgments
The appellant relied on earlier High Court decisions dealing with High School Assistants. The Supreme Court clarified that those cases involved a different cadre governed by different rules.
Higher Secondary Teachers form a separate cadre with higher academic standards, the Court noted. Therefore, earlier rulings on B.Ed qualifications for High School Assistants could not apply here.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Orders Probe Into ₹14 Lakh Sabarimala Staff Transfers During Mandala
Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals.
It upheld the Kerala High Court’s finding that:
- SET qualification must correspond to the subject of appointment.
- A SET pass in Malayalam does not qualify a candidate for HSST (Economics).
- The competing candidate, who had SET in Economics, was eligible for consideration.
The Court directed the authorities to issue necessary orders within two months.
Importantly, it clarified that no recovery of salary already paid to the appellant should be made.
With that, the matter was concluded.
Case Title: Zubair P. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 17785/2024 & 30768/2025
Decision Date: 13 February 2026
