In a landmark ruling on the Maharashtra Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) 2018 and 2019 scam, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) has held that mass-scale exam fraud justifies cancelling tampered results without a hearing. At the same time, the Bench cautioned that the additional punishment of permanent debarment is a penalty that strikes at livelihood and cannot be imposed without following principles of natural justice.
While the Court endorsed the State and Council’s power to cancel tampered results of 7,880 candidates without a hearing, it held that the additional punishment of lifetime ban from future TET exams could not be imposed without following due process, granting liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings.
The Court drew a sharp distinction between cancellation of results and permanent debarment, holding that while cancellation is a remedial correction of fraudulently altered marks and does not require a pre-decisional hearing in mass malpractice cases, permanent debarment is a punitive measure that strikes at livelihood and cannot be imposed without issuing a show cause notice and affording an opportunity of being heard.
The Court treated the petitioner’s failure to deny the mismatch between their answer sheets and the printed mark sheets as an implied admission of tampering, reinforcing that the cancellation of results stood on overwhelming evidence verified by an expert committee through physical comparison of scanned OMR sheets with model answers. Accordingly, three petitions were dismissed outright for suppression of material facts because the petitioners had concealed that their statements were recorded by the police authorities admitting to mark tampering, and the Court directed the Council and State to identify any other such candidates who similarly suppressed this fact.
The Court pointed out that the benefit of the Supreme Court’s judgement in State of U.P. vs. Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust [Review Petition No.53434 of 2025 dated 29.05.2026], which extended the deadline to clear TET till 31 August 2028, was held to be available only to teachers who were already in service on the date TET was made compulsory, and not to those recruited thereafter, who were granted only eight weeks of interim protection.
However, the respondents were granted liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings against all petitioners in accordance with law and after complying with principles of natural justice, with a direction to complete such proceedings on or before 31 December 2027, while candidates who cleared alternative exams like CTET or TAIT were permitted to continue in teaching jobs despite the cancellation of their TET results.
The Court found that the decision-making process was not flawed, as the respondents had followed a detailed sequence of steps from December 2021 to August 2022, including constituting an expert committee, physical verification of answer sheets, and passing a resolution before cancelling the results. The Court observed that the cancellation of results was a remedial measure to correct tampered marks and not a penalty, and that in cases of mass malpractice, the principles of natural justice need not be strictly followed for cancellation of results.
However, the Court made a clear distinction between cancellation of results and permanent debarment, observing that permanent debarment is a penalty/punishment which affects the livelihood of candidates and cannot be imposed without following the principles of natural justice. The Court also noted that some petitioners had suppressed the material fact that their statements were recorded by the police authorities admitting to tampering of marks.
Briefly, a large group of petitions were filed before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) by candidates who had appeared for the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) 2018 and 2019, challenging the cancellation of their results and their permanent debarment from appearing in future TET examinations. The TET exam was made compulsory by a Government Resolution dated 23 August 2013 for appointment of teachers for Standards I to VIII, pursuant to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
The TET 2019 exam was conducted on 19 January 2020 by the Maharashtra State Council of Examination, with the process outsourced to G.A. Software Company. Results were declared in August 2020, with 16,705 candidates declared successful out of more than 3 lakhs who appeared. On 16 December 2021, the Chairman of the Council lodged an FIR after the cyber police informed that marks of around 7,880 candidates had been tampered with, which came to light during investigation of the MHADA exam scam. A similar FIR was filed regarding TET 2018, where around 1,700 marksheets were found tampered.
On 10 June 2022, the State directed the Council to conduct an enquiry and take action including permanent debarment, freezing of Shalarth IDs and salaries. The Council passed the impugned order dated 3 August 2022 cancelling results of 7,880 candidates and permanently debarring them, followed by a similar order dated 14 October 2022 for TET 2018 candidates. The petitioners challenged these orders on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice, lack of authority, and non-application of mind.
Appearances
For the Petitioners: Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate, i/by Adv. S. R. Sapkal and Adv. Priyanka Kale and Atharva D. Khedkar, Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate i/by Adv. Ashwini Navjyot Bandiwadekar, Mr. Suresh S. Pakale, Senior Advocate i/by Ms. Malgaonkar Padmaja U., Mr. Shinde Rahul Ashok, and Mr. Shankar M. Katkar, Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukkh, Senior Advocate i/by Adv. Kunal Arvind Kale, Adv. A. M. Inamdar, Adv. A. R. Syed, Adv. Arvind Gopalrao Ambetkar, Adv. Ateeque Mohd., Adv. Pralhad D. Bachate, Adv. K. D. Bade Patil, Adv. D. S. Bagul, Adv. Harish S. Bali, Adv. Parag Vijay Barde, Adv. Prashant S. Bhavake, Adv. Mahesh S. Bhosale, Adv. Sidheshwar N. Biradar, Adv. Yogesh B. Bolkar, Adv. Shailesh P. Brahme, Adv. Chetan G. Patil, Adv. Balaji S. Chondhekar, Adv. Ajit B. Chormal, Adv. D. J. Choudhary, Adv. Digvijay R. Khapre, Adv. Pushkar A. Deshpande, Adv., Deepak Sathe, Adv. Sanjeev Bapu Deore, Adv. Abhay G. Deshmukh, Adv. S. S. Deshpande, Adv. Sachin Deshpande, Adv. Vivek J. Dhage, Adv. Dhananjay Rananaware, Adv. R. B. Dhore, Adv. Vithal H. Dighe, Adv. Sushant V. Dixit, Adv. R. J. Godbole, Adv. G. J. Pahilwan, Adv., Ganesh Asaram Gadhe, Adv. Shahaji B. Ghatol Patil, Adv. Girish S. Rane, Adv. Ravi Balasaheb Gite, Adv. Bhaskar Parmeshwar Gonare, Adv., Nikita N. Gore, Adv. Nitin S. Ingle, Adv. Kailas B. Jadhav, Adv., Samadhan H. Jadhav, Adv. Rakesh Nemichandji Jain, Adv. Vishal S. Kadam a/w. Ms. Pratiksha C. Kale, Adv. N. B. Kalwaghe, Adv. D. A. Karnik, Adv. Ram D. Karode, Adv. Shankar M. Katkar, Adv. Shrirang Katneshwarkar, Adv. Kazi S. S., Adv. Sabahat T. Kazi, Adv. Shrimant Ravsaheb Kedar, Adv. Sameer Khan, Adv. Akshay D. Khot, Adv., Pundlik S. Kochar, Adv. S. R. Kolhare, Adv. Sanjay Ramlal Kolhare, Adv. Sanjay D. Kotkar, Adv. Gajanan K. Kshirsagar, Adv. Mukul S. Kulkarni, Adv. Suvidh S. Kulkarni, Adv. Mandar G. Bagkar, Adv., Lalitkumar S. Mahajan, Adv. Surekha P. Mahajan, Adv. Padmaja U. Malgaonkar, Adv. Bhooshan R. Mandalik, Adv. Irfan D. Maniyar, Adv., Khushbu Ghanashyam Marwadi, Adv. Umesh G. Mitkari, Adv. Ankush N. Nagargoje, Adv. Girish K. Naik Thigle, Adv. Ramesh Vitthal Naiknavare, Adv. P. S. Kshirsagar, Adv. Vilas S. Panpatte, Adv., Vishalkumar S. Pardeshi, Adv. Paresh B. Patil (Borse), Adv. Jitendra Vijay Patil, Adv. Prafullasing H. Patil, Adv. Prakashsing B. Patil, Adv., Rohit Nitin Patil, Adv. Vikram Tanajirao Patil, Adv. Vinod Prakash Patil, Adv. Pavan K. Raulkar, Adv. Ajay D. Pawar, Adv. Aniket Bhausaheb Pawar, Adv. Vaibhav U. Pawar, Adv. Rahul R. Shelke, Adv., Ritu P. Jog, Adv. Sachin B. Thorat, Adv. Amarnath S. Sakhare, Adv., Vitthal G. Salgare, Adv. Mahendra N. Sandhyanshiv, Adv. D. V. Sapkal, Adv. Sandip R. Sapkal, Adv. Majit S. Shaikh, Adv. Shivaji T. Shelke, Adv. P. N. Shende, Adv. Rahul Ashok Shinde, Adv. Shrikrashna B. Solanke, Adv. Rahul Rajendra Suryawanshi, Adv. Rajendra R. Suryawanshi, Adv. Azizoddin R. Syed, Adv. G. R. Syed, Mr. Yadnesh V. Dharmadhikari h/f. Adv. Ajay G. Talhar, Adv. Vikas B. Tapkir, Adv., Sagar Tembekar, Adv. Vedika Thakare, Adv. Dhananjay B. Thoke, Adv., Sambhaji Subhashrao Tope, Adv. Manish Purushottam Tripathi, Adv., Tukaram M. Venjane, Adv. Vinod P. Sangvikar, Adv. Vishnu B. Madan, Adv. Ramesh I. Wakade, Adv. Vijay Shivaji Wakale, Adv. S. S. Wankhede, Adv. Yogesh C. Patil.
For the Respondents: Adv. Anup R. Nikam for Commissioner, Maharashtra State Examination Council, Pune, Adv. Abhijeet V. Thombre, Adv. Ashok Janrao, Adv. Bhaskar Parmeshwar Gonare, Adv. B. S. Deshmukh, Adv., Dnyaneshwar Suresh Bagul, Adv. Rahul Bhagawantrao Bagul, Adv., Mirza Mazhar Javed Baig, Adv. Ravi Raosaheb Bangar, Adv., Bhausaheb B. Bhise, Adv. Pravin Dilip Biradar, Adv. Yogesh G., Birajdar, Adv. Poonam V. Bodke Patil, Adv. Yogesh B. Bolkar, Adv., Uttam Bajirao Bondar, Adv. Rupeshkumar C. Bora, Adv. Rakesh C. Bramhankar, Adv. Vaishali S. Chaudhari, Adv. Ashish R. Dand, Adv., Rajendra V. Dasalkar, Adv. Bhausaheb S. Deshmukh, Adv. Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Adv. Vaibhav G. Deshmukh, Adv. Vijay Vasantrao Deshmukh, Adv. Sadashiv N. Deve, Adv. Sadanand Sadashiv Deve, Adv. Shantaram Ravji Dheple, Adv. Ranjit D. Gaikwad h/f. Adv. Dilip Bodake, Adv. R. J. Godbole, Adv. Kamaloddin Nuruddin Farooqui, Adv. Luqmaan Kaseem Farooqui, Adv. Pramod S. Gaikwad, Adv., Praveen B. Gamot, Adv. Aniruddha B. Ghule, Adv. Girish S. Rane, Adv., Umesh Babanrao Gite, Adv. Madhur A. Golegaonkar, Adv. Vivekanand Vishwambhar Gujar, Adv. Subhas V. Gutte, Adv. Adinath B. Jagtap, Adv. Akshay Subhash Jagtap, Adv. Manjusha S. Jagtap, Adv. Rakesh Nemichandji Jain, Adv. Dhiraj R. Jethliya, Adv. Sandeep Chandreshakhar Joshi, Adv. Nitin Shamrao Kadam for Zilla Parishad, Nanded, Adv. Y. M. Khan, Adv. Abhinay D. Khot, Adv. Amol Ashok Kokad, Adv. Pratik P. Kothari, Adv. Bhushan B. Kulkarni, Adv. Girish N. Kulkarni (Mardikar), Adv. Mukul S. Kulkarni, Adv. S. S. Kulkarni, Adv., Supriya Kulkarni, Adv. Sachin Vijay Kuptekar, Adv. Manjushri V. Narwade, Adv. Datta A. Madake, Adv. Lalitkumar S. Mahajan, Adv., Milind S. Mahajan, Adv. Sunil B. Jadhav, Adv. Uday S. Malte, Adv., Satish S. Manale, Adv. V. M. Maney, Adv. Vivek J. Dhage, Adv. Irfan D. Maniyar, Adv. Sachin B. Munde, Adv. Kartik D. Mundhe, Adv. Nikhil S. Tekale, Adv. Ankush N. Nagargoje, Adv. Prashant R. Nangare, Adv., Sharad V. Natu, Adv. Ramchandra J. Nirmal, Adv. Prashant D. Suryawanshi, Adv. Vilas S. Panpatte, Adv. Amol N. Patale, Adv., Azaroddin Chandpasha Pathan, Adv. Hanmant V. Patil, Adv. Jitendra Vijay Patil, Adv. Nayana P. Patil, Adv. Pravin Shamrao Patil, Adv., Swapnil S. Patil, Adv. Ajay D. Pawar, Adv. Pravin N. Kalani, Adv., Santosh Baburao Pulkundwar, Adv. S. R. Yadav-Lonikar, Adv. S. S. Randive, Adv. Ashwin V. Sakolkar, Adv. Milind B. Sandanshiv, Adv., Amol Shivajirao Sawant, Adv. U. A. Sayyed, Adv. Umair Pasha A. Quader Sayyed, Adv. Jayant Ramanlal Shah, Adv. Shahaji K. Shinde, Adv. Nasimoddin R. Shaikh, Adv. Tarek Mobin H. Shaikh, Adv., Avishkar S. Shelke, Adv. Bhagwat Achutrao Shinde, Adv. Kishor T. Shirrurkar, Adv. Shrishail Sakhare, Adv. Aditya N. Sikchi, Adv. V. R., Patil, Adv. Maheshkumar S. Sonawane, Adv. Sunil S. Shinde, Adv., Gauri Shelke, Adv. Prashant V. Suryawanshi, Adv. Masood Chand Syed, Adv. Ajay G. Talhar, Adv. Pradeepkumar R. Tandale, Adv., Bhagwan V. Thombre, Adv. Yogita S. Thorat, Adv. Sushilkumar H. Tripathi, Adv. Hrishikesh V. Tungar, Adv. Dinesh L. Vakil, Adv., Laharimanohar D. Vakil, Adv. Vikrant S. Valse, Adv. Vinod M. Vibhute, Adv. Pratap B. Vikhe, Adv. Vivek Vasantrao Bhavthankar, Adv., Shrinivas S. Wagh, Adv. Santosh R. Yadav, Adv. S. R. Yamani, Adv., Roshan S. Sawant, Adv. Monish R. Ghavri.
Advocates/ AGP for the State: Mr. V. D. Hon, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. P. S. Patil, Addl.GP., Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, Mr. R. S. Wani, Mr. S. R. Yadav Lonikar, Mr. K. N. Lokhande, Mr. N. S. Tekale, AGPs
