SET in Malayalam Cannot Qualify You to Teach Economics: Supreme Court Upholds Subject-Specific Eligibility for HSST Appointments

“A Candidate Tested in an Unrelated Discipline Cannot Claim Appointment in a Specialised Subject”, In a significant ruling reinforcing academic standards in higher secondary education, the Supreme Court of India on 13 February 2026 dismissed appeals filed by Zubair P., holding that a State Eligibility Test (SET) qualification must be in the concerned subject for appointment as Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST).

Bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi upheld the Kerala High Court’s judgment rejecting the appellant’s appointment as HSST (Economics) for lack of SET qualification in Economics.

The Court ruled that even though Rule 6(2)(24)(iii) of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules does not expressly repeat the words “in the concerned subject,” a purposive and contextual interpretation mandates that the SET qualification must correspond to the subject of appointment. The appeals were dismissed, and the competing candidate possessing SET in Economics was declared eligible for consideration with consequential benefits. However, the Court protected the appellant from recovery of excess salary already paid.

The appellant entered service as an Upper Primary School Teacher in 2002, was promoted as High School Teacher in 2004, and was appointed by transfer as HSST (Economics) on 15 July 2021. He possessed B.A. and M.A. in Economics, B.Ed. in Social Sciences, and SET qualification — but in Malayalam, not in Economics.

Respondent No. 4, a competing candidate, held B.A., M.A. in Economics, B.Ed., and SET qualification in Economics.

Upon objection by Respondent No. 4, the authorities rejected approval of the appellant’s appointment on the ground that he lacked SET in Economics and did not have ten years of approved High School teaching service to claim exemption under Rule 10(4). The Government relied on a clarification dated 18.01.2021 stating that SET must be passed “in the respective subject.”

The learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition and allowed the competing candidate’s plea. The Division Bench affirmed this view. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

The core issue was whether Rule 6(2)(24)(iii) of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules requires the SET qualification to be in the concerned subject for appointment as HSST.

The appellant argued that the Rule deliberately omitted subject-specific language in clause (iii) and that courts cannot “add words” to statutory provisions. It was contended that possession of SET in any subject satisfied eligibility.

The State and the competing candidate countered that SET is inherently subject-specific, as demonstrated by the scheme of examination, and that accepting the appellant’s interpretation would defeat the object of maintaining academic standards at the Higher Secondary level.

A secondary issue concerned exemption under Rule 10(4), which provides relief from SET requirement for teachers with ten years of approved High School service. The appellant had only 9 years, 10 months and 14 days of eligible service.

Purposive Interpretation Over Literal Omission

The Bench emphasized that statutory provisions cannot be read in isolation. Relying on Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. (1987) 1 SCC 424, the Court reiterated:

“Interpretation must depend on the text and the context… No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation.”

The Court noted that SET is conducted subject-wise, and as per the prospectus:

“Paper II shall be a test based on the subject of specialisation of the candidate at the Post Graduate (PG) Level.”

Thus, SET qualification is inherently subject-specific. The Court reasoned that when SET itself tests postgraduate-level subject expertise, it necessarily implies qualification in the concerned subject.

Accepting the appellant’s argument would lead to what the Court termed an “absurd result”:

“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.”

The Court concluded that even though the phrase “in the concerned subject” is not repeated in clause (iii), it must be inferred from context, purpose and scheme of the Rules.

Validity of Government Clarification

The Government Letter dated 18.01.2021 clarified:

“Since it is mandatory to pass the SET exam in the respective subject to become a Higher Secondary teacher…”

The appellant argued that executive instructions cannot override statutory rules. However, the Court held that the clarification was consistent with the statutory scheme and did not amount to impermissible amendment when read contextually.

Distinction Between HSA and HSST Cadres

The appellant relied on the Full Bench decision in Manager, MPVHS School v. Girija (2003), which dealt with High School Assistants under Chapter XXXI.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Chapter XXXII, governing Higher Secondary Teachers, is differently worded and imposes higher academic standards. Therefore, the Full Bench decision in Girija was held inapplicable.

Exemption Under Rule 10(4) Rejected

The Court found that the appellant had only 9 years, 10 months and 14 days of approved High School teaching service.

Since Rule 10(4) mandates a minimum of ten years, the Court categorically held that the appellant was not entitled to exemption from SET.

Relief Granted and Final Directions

The Court upheld the High Court’s declaration that the appellant was not qualified for appointment as HSST (Economics) in the vacancy that arose on 01.06.2021.

It affirmed that Respondent No. 4, possessing BA, MA, B.Ed., and SET in Economics, satisfied all eligibility criteria and must be considered for appointment with consequential benefits.

Authorities were directed to issue necessary orders within two months.

Importantly, the Court protected the appellant from financial hardship by directing that no recovery of excess salary paid to him shall be made.

The Supreme Court has firmly settled that for appointment as HSST under Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules, SET qualification must be in the concerned subject. A literal omission cannot defeat legislative intent or dilute academic standards at the Higher Secondary level.

The judgment strengthens the principle that statutory interpretation must advance purpose and suppress mischief, particularly in educational standards where subject expertise is paramount.

Date of Decision: 13 February 2026