As per case facts, appellant Zubair P was appointed as HSST (Economics) but his appointment was rejected for lacking subject-specific SET qualification, holding SET only in Malayalam. Respondent No. 4, ...
2026 INSC 151 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025) Page 1 of 29
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 17785 of 2024)
ZUBAIR. P … APPELLANT
versus
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 30768 of 2025)
J U D G M E N T
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
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
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025) Page 2 of 29
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.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025) Page 3 of 29
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
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025) Page 4 of 29
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 respondent-
authorities, 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.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025) Page 5 of 29
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
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025) Page 6 of 29
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
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025) Page 7 of 29
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.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025) Page 8 of 29
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 respondent-
authorities 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:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025) Page 9 of 29
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.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025) Page 10 of 29
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.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 3 (Manager,
PTM Higher Secondary School)
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
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025) Page 11 of 29
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
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025) Page 12 of 29
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
verified by the post-graduate degree.
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
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025) Page 13 of 29
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.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 4
(Competing candidate for HSST (Economics))
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:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025) Page 14 of 29
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
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025) Page 15 of 29
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
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025) Page 16 of 29
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
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025) Page 17 of 29
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),
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025) Page 18 of 29
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:
“6. Qualifications:- No person shall be eligible for
appointment to the category in column (2) in the
table below under the method specified in column
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025) Page 19 of 29
(3) unless he possesses the qualifications
prescribed in the corresponding entry in column (4)
there of.
Sl.
No.
(1)
Category
(2)
Method of
Appointment
(3)
Qualifications
(4)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
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
persons with B.Ed.
degree as specified in
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025) Page 20 of 29
terms (1) and (2) above,
persons with B.Ed.
Degree in any subject
acquired after a regular
course of study from any
of the Universities in
Kerala or a qualification
recognised as equivalent
thereto by any of the
Universities in Kerala.
(iii) Pass in the State
Eligibility Test for the
post of Higher
Secondary School
Teacher conducted by
Government of Kerala or
by the Agency authorized
by the State Government.
(emphasis supplied)
14. Thus, from the perusal of Rule 6, it transpires that the said
Rule provides for qualification for appointment as HSST.
Clause 24 deals with the subject ‘Economics’. The Rule
provides that the post in question requires a Master’s Degree
in the concerned subject with a particular percentage of
marks and a B.Ed. qualification. Sub-clause (iii) provides
that the candidate shall “pass in the State Eligibility Test
(SET) for the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST)
conducted by the Government of Kerala or by the agency
authorized by the State Government.”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025) Page 21 of 29
15. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellant and
respondent no. 3 rests on the absence of the words “in the
concerned subject” in clause (iii). However, we are of the view
that a statutory provision cannot be interpreted in isolation
or by placing undue emphasis on textual omission divorced
from context, purpose and scheme.
16. In Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and
Investment Co. Ltd., (1987) 1 SCC 424 , this Court
authoritatively held that interpretation must depend on the
text and the context and that the statute must be read as a
whole so as to advance its object and suppress the mischief.
It was observed that a construction which leads to absurdity
or defeats the purpose of the enactment must be avoided. The
relevant paragraph of the said decision is reproduced as
under:
“33. Interpretation must depend on the text and the
context. They are the bases of interpretation. One
may well say if the text is the texture, context is
what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both
are important. That interpretation is best which
makes the textual interpretation match the
contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we
know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the
statute must be read, first as a whole and then
section by section, clause by clause, phrase by
phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at,
in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of
the statute-maker, provided by such context, its
scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025) Page 22 of 29
may take colour and appear different than when
the statute is looked at without the glasses
provided by the context. With these glasses we
must look at the Act as a whole and discover what
each section, each clause, each phrase and each
word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the
scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no
word of a statute can be construed in isolation.
Statutes have to be construed so that every word
has a place and everything is in its place. It is by
looking at the definition as a whole in the setting of
the entire Act and by reference to what preceded
the enactment and the reasonsfor it that the Court
construed the expression “Prize Chit” in Srinivasa
[(1980) 4 SCC 507 : (1981) 1 SCR 801 : 51 Com Cas
464] and we find no reason to depart from the
Court's construction.”
17. The Government Letter dated 18.01.2021 further clarifies
that SET must be in the concerned subject to become a
Higher Secondary teacher. The relevant part of the said Letter
is reproduced as under:
“Your attention is drawn to the notification. Since it
is mandatory to pass the SET exam in the
respective subject to become a Higher Secondary
teacher, it is informed that the SET qualification in
Sociology cannot be considered for appointment to
the HSST (English) post.”
18. At this stage, we would also like to refer to the prospectus for
the SET examination. The relevant paragraphs and the
scheme of the test is extracted as below:
“1. Introduction
In order to ensure the standards of teaching
in Higher Secondary Course, the Government
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025) Page 23 of 29
have decided to conduct the State Eligibility
Test for the candidates to be selected as
Higher Secondary School Teachers and Non-
Vocational Teachers in VHSE. A pass in the
State Eligibility Test (SET) is stipulated as a
mandatory requirement for appointment as
Higher Secondary School Teachers in the
State as per the Special Rules in force.
XXX XXX XXX
2. Scheme of the Test.
2.1 There shall be two papers for the SET-JULY-
2021.
Paper I
Paper I is common for all candidates. It
consists of two parts, Part(A) General
Knowledge and Part(B) Aptitude in Teaching.
Paper II
Paper II shall be a test based on the subject of
specialisation of the candidate at the Post
Graduate (PG) Level.”
19. On perusal of the aforesaid scheme of the test, it transpires
that the test consists of two papers where Paper II is based
on the subject of specialisation of the candidate at Post
Graduate Level. Thus, it is not in dispute that SET is
conducted subject-wise and it includes a paper testing
postgraduate-level subject expertise, therefore, a candidate
cannot qualify in SET without choosing a specific subject of
specialisation. Hence, when SET qualification is itself
subject-specific, it is immaterial whether or not Rule
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025) Page 24 of 29
6.2(24)(iii) of Chapter XXXII of the Rules provides for SET “in
the concerned subject” or not.
20. The specific case of respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 4
that the legislature decided to conduct SET examination for
the post of HSST in order to ensure the academic and
teaching standards in the Higher Secondary level and thus,
the SET qualification must be in the same subject as that of
the HSST post, is well founded, as the said submission is
supported by the object and scheme of the test laid down in
the prospectus as well.
21. It is clear that the object of introducing SET for Higher
Secondary Teachers is to ensure subject competence and
pedagogical suitability at the Higher Secondary level, which
is qualitatively distinct from lower teaching cadres. Thus, in
this backdrop, to accept the interpretation of the appellant
would result in a situation where a candidate tested for
eligibility in an entirely unrelated discipline could claim
appointment to teach another specialised subject and such
an interpretation would defeat the very object of prescribing
the SET qualification at the Higher Secondary level and
would lead to manifestly absurd results.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025) Page 25 of 29
22. Therefore, a purposive and contextual reading of Rule 6 of
Chapter XXXII of the Rules compels the conclusion that the
SET qualification must necessarily correspond to the subject
of appointment, even if the Rule does not expressly reiterate
the phrase “concerned subject” in clause (iii) of the said Rule.
We are unable to accept the submission that such an
interpretation amounts to “adding words” to the Rule, as this
Court is duty bound to undertake a purposive and
harmonious interpretation of the statute.
23. The reliance placed by the appellant and respondent no. 3 on
Girija (supra) is misplaced and the High Court rightly
distinguished the said decision, as it concerned the cadre of
High School Assistants and the B.Ed. qualification and the
issue in the present case involves Higher Secondary cadre
and the SET qualification, which stands on a distinct footing
with higher academic standards. The relevant paragraph of
the impugned judgment is reproduced as under:
“7. Before going into the said issue, it will be better
to bear in mind the well settled principles of
interpretation. If the rule is clear and unambiguous,
the intention of the legislature need not be gather
with reference to the other rules We must remember
that Chapter XXXI Rule 2 of KER deals with
appointment of the High School Assistants,
whereas Chapter XXXII is concerning the Higher
Secondary School Teachers. The judgment of the
Full Bench in Girija (Supra) was concerned with the
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025) Page 26 of 29
interpretation of Rule 2 of Chapter XXXI of KER. On
a reading of the said Rule, it becomes evident that
there is no insistence to obtain B.Ed in the
concerned subject for appointment as HSA.
However coming to Rule 6.2(24) of Chapter XXXII
K.E.R, that is not the case. Therefore, we are of the
view that interpretation placed by the Full Bench of
this Court in Girija (Supra) cannot come to the aid of
the appellant in this case. Therefore, we find that
the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in
finding that the Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII KER is
differently worded from Rule 2 of Chapter XXXI
KER. It is also pertinent to note that, the post to
which these two Rules apply are also different.”
24. Further reliance placed by respondent no. 3 on the decision
of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala in the
case of Geetha (supra) is distinguishable, as it concerned
Rule 10 of Chapter XXXII of the Rules which provides for
exemption for the SET qualification in case of ten years
teaching experience. However, the present case is concerned
about the very foundation of the SET qualification and thus,
the same cannot be treated lightly.
25. From the aforesaid detailed discussion, it can be said that
the concerned candidate is required to pass SET in the
concerned subject. In the present case, it is not in dispute
that the appellant, though having Bachelor’s Degree as well
as Master’s Degree in Economics, passed SET in Malayalam,
whereas, respondent no. 4 is having the degrees of Bachelor’s
and Master’s in Economics as well as the SET qualification
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025) Page 27 of 29
in Economics. We are, therefore, of the view that when
respondent no. 4 is fulfilling all the required eligibility criteria
including the SET qualification in the concerned subject, the
High Court has not committed any error while passing the
impugned judgment and order.
26. At this stage, it is also relevant to observe that it is the case
of the appellant that Rule 10(4) of Chapter XXXII of the Rules
provides that “teachers who have completed ten years of
approved teaching service at the High School level shall be
exempted from passing the State Eligibility Test”. Admittedly,
the appellant has completed 09 years 10 months and 14 days
service, i.e., less than ten years which is the minimum
prescribed by the Rules and, therefore, the appellant is not
entitled to seek an exemption under the said Rule. Thus, we
are of the view that the said contention of the appellant is
also misconceived.
CONCLUSION
27. Therefore, from the above detailed analysis, the answer to the
question posed for our determination is as under:
27.1. When Rule 6.2(24)(iii) of Chapter XXXII of the Rules is
read with the prospectus of the SET examination,
particularly Clause 2 of the prospectus, it can be safely said
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025) Page 28 of 29
that the candidate is required to pass SET in the concerned
subject to qualify for the appointment to the post of HSST in
the said concerned subject. Even though in Rule 6.2(24)(iii),
the words “in the concerned subject” are missing, the said
Rule cannot be interpreted in isolation and the textual
omission has to be inferred from context, purpose and
scheme of the provision. Thus, the said clause is required to
be interpreted in the aforesaid manner. and possession of
SET qualification in any other subject unrelated to the
teaching post, does not suffice the statutory eligibility
criteria.
27.2. Therefore, the High Court has not committed any error
in affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge, wherein
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 and
respondent no. 4 is eligible 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
and the findings in the present judgment regarding the
eligibility of respondent no. 4 shall also be considered while
considering her claim for appointment to the post.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil A. No(s) ………………….. of 2026 (@ SLP No(s). 17785 of 2024 & 30768 of 2025) Page 29 of 29
27.3. Necessary orders shall be issued by the respondent-
authorities within a period of two months from the date of
this judgment.
28. It is further clarified that in pursuance to the appointment
made to the post in question, no recovery of excess amount
paid to the appellant, if any, shall be carried out by the
respondent-authorities.
29. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the present
appeals deserve to be dismissed and accordingly, both the
present appeals are dismissed.
.......……….…………………….J.
[K.V. VISWANATHAN]
..….....………………………….J.
[VIPUL M. PANCHOLI]
NEW DELHI
February 13, 2026
Legal Notes
Add a Note....