Bombay High Court Rejects TAIT-2022 Candidates’ Claim to Old Teacher Vacancies; Holds Earlier Scores Lapsed After TAIT-2025, Protects Two Non-Participating Candidates’ Consideration Rights
Facts
The writ petition was filed by 30 candidates who had participated in the Teacher Aptitude and Intelligence Test, 2022 (TAIT-2022) recruitment process conducted by the State of Maharashtra through the Pavitra Portal.
Their principal grievance was that approximately 10% of teacher posts remained vacant in Phase-I, apart from further vacancies resulting from absenteeism, disqualification, non-joining and unfilled reserved posts for categories such as ex-servicemen and earthquake-affected candidates.
TAIT-2022 applications had been invited on 31 January 2023 and the examination commenced from 22 February 2023. The petitioners claimed that although they were eligible and participated, various advertised posts remained unfilled.
The General Administration Department subsequently directed that only 484 posts should remain reserved for ex-servicemen, with other eligible vacancies being de-reserved. Further Government directions in September 2024 and January 2025 contemplated filling the remaining vacancies, including those caused by absence, disqualification and non-joining.
The petitioners nevertheless alleged that the State failed to appropriately de-reserve and fill those vacancies from the TAIT-2022 pool.
On 26 May 2026, the School Education and Sports Department declined their request. By then, the reservation structure had changed because of the introduction of 10% SEBC reservation under the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2024, and a subsequent TAIT-2025 recruitment process had commenced.
The petitioners challenged that decision under Article 226.
Issues
The central issue was whether vacancies left over from TAIT-2022—including the 10% posts kept vacant, posts remaining vacant because of non-joining, absence or disqualification, and vacancies requiring de-reservation—had to be offered to TAIT-2022 candidates.
The Court also considered:
- whether TAIT-2022 candidates had an enforceable right to appointment against all advertised vacancies;
- whether TAIT-2022 scores continued to remain valid after declaration of TAIT-2025 results;
- whether candidates who voluntarily appeared in TAIT-2025 could later claim recruitment on their earlier TAIT-2022 scores;
- whether reopening old vacancies would disturb an advanced recruitment process involving approximately 1.70 lakh TAIT-2025 candidates; and
- whether any special protection was warranted for the two petitioners who had not participated in TAIT-2025.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners relied upon an earlier order passed by a coordinate Bench in Writ Petition No. 3203 of 2025, contending that similarly placed TAIT-2022 candidates had been directed to be considered according to merit for vacancies existing when TAIT-2022 was conducted.
They argued that pursuant to the General Administration Department’s directions, the State should have de-reserved vacant ex-servicemen and earthquake-affected posts and filled them from eligible TAIT-2022 candidates.
They further contended that all vacancies arising from:
- candidates remaining absent;
- disqualification;
- non-joining;
- failure to find candidates in reserved categories; and
- the deliberate withholding of 10% posts
should have been published and filled from the TAIT-2022 merit pool.
Accordingly, they challenged the Government’s 26 May 2026 decision as arbitrary and illegal.
Respondents’ Arguments
The State relied primarily upon the Government Resolution dated 10 November 2022.
That GR expressly provided that once the results of a subsequent TAIT examination were declared, scores obtained in an earlier TAIT examination would cease to be valid for recruitment.
TAIT-2025 results had been declared on 18 August 2025. Therefore, according to the State, TAIT-2022 scores could no longer be used for recruitment undertaken in 2026.
The State also emphasised that 28 out of the 30 petitioners had themselves appeared in TAIT-2025 and could not participate in the later recruitment process while simultaneously insisting upon rights based on TAIT-2022.
Finally, the State argued that no candidate had an indefeasible right to appointment merely because vacancies had been advertised or because the candidate had qualified.
Analysis of the Law
No Indefeasible Right to Appointment
The Court began with the settled principle in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47.
The Supreme Court had held that merely because vacancies are advertised and suitable candidates are available, successful candidates do not acquire an absolute or indefeasible right to appointment.
The State is ordinarily not legally bound to fill every advertised vacancy, although its decision cannot be arbitrary and must be based on bona fide and appropriate reasons.
The Bombay High Court distilled the governing principles as follows:
- the employer need not fill every advertised vacancy;
- selection does not confer an indefeasible appointment right;
- participation in interviews, tests or an unfinished recruitment process does not create a vested right; and
- even a recruitment process may be cancelled for valid reasons.
TAIT-2022 Scores Ceased to Be Valid
The decisive contractual/policy condition appeared in the Government Resolution dated 10 November 2022.
It provided that after declaration of results of a subsequent TAIT examination, marks obtained in the earlier TAIT would cease to remain valid for recruitment.
TAIT-2025 results were declared on 18 August 2025.
Accordingly, the Court held that the TAIT-2022 evaluation could no longer be used for recruitment undertaken in 2026.
This significantly weakened the petitioners’ claim that the State should revive TAIT-2022 scores to fill old vacancies after the new examination cycle had already superseded them.
Participation in TAIT-2025
The Court found another significant obstacle to the petitioners’ case.
Except for petitioner no. 6, Baburao Devidas Rankhambe, and petitioner no. 20, Jyotsna Sunil Pangare, all petitioners had appeared in TAIT-2025.
The Court treated their participation in the subsequent examination as inconsistent with their attempt to revive rights allegedly flowing from TAIT-2022.
It relied on settled recruitment jurisprudence that a candidate who knowingly participates in a selection process cannot ordinarily challenge that same process after taking the chance of success.
TAIT Is a Merit Benchmark, Not a Standalone Qualification
The Court also clarified the character of the TAIT examination.
TAIT assesses aptitude and intelligence relevant to teacher selection. Its score functions as a common merit benchmark among otherwise qualified candidates.
It is not, by itself, a qualifying examination creating an independent right to appointment.
Candidates must also upload their professional and educational qualifications, exercise preferences for vacancies and schools, and thereafter be considered through the Pavitra Portal mechanism.
Precedent Analysis
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47
This was the principal precedent.
The Court relied upon it for the proposition that inclusion in a selection process does not confer an indefeasible appointment right and that the State need not fill all advertised vacancies, provided its decision is bona fide and non-arbitrary.
Vinodan T v. University of Calicut, (2002) 4 SCC 726
The Court noted that Vinodan T approved the principle stated in Shankarsan Dash, reinforcing that selection does not create an absolute right to appointment.
All India SC & ST Employees’ Association v. A. Arthur Jeen, (2001) 6 SCC 380
This case was also relied upon for the proposition that, absent a statutory rule to the contrary, the State is not under an absolute obligation to fill every vacancy.
Ranjan Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 16 SCC 187
The Court relied on Ranjan Kumar for the principle that candidates who knowingly participate in a selection process cannot later reverse their stand and challenge that process merely because the outcome is unfavourable.
Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 1986 Supp SCC 285
This authority similarly held that a candidate who appears in an examination without protest should not ordinarily be permitted to challenge the process after realising that he may not succeed.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that several factors cumulatively defeated the petitioners’ claim.
First, no candidate had an absolute right to insist that every TAIT-2022 vacancy be filled.
Second, TAIT-2022 marks ceased to remain valid once TAIT-2025 results were declared, by virtue of the governing GR.
Third, 28 of the petitioners voluntarily appeared in TAIT-2025 and their results were declared. Having participated in the later recruitment cycle, they could not thereafter insist that the State return to the earlier cycle and appoint them against old Phase-I vacancies.
Fourth, the later recruitment process involved about 1,70,000 candidates and had reached its final stage. The Court considered it inappropriate to disrupt that entire exercise because of a belated petition filed in July 2026.
Fifth, the applicable reservation policy had materially changed after TAIT-2022, including introduction of the 10% SEBC quota.
For these reasons, the Court declined to direct the State to fill the remaining TAIT-2022 vacancies.
Relief to Two Petitioners
The Court, however, drew a distinction for the two petitioners who did not appear for TAIT-2025.
Since petitioner no. 6, Baburao Devidas Rankhambe, and petitioner no. 20, Jyotsna Sunil Pangare, had not participated in TAIT-2025, the Court held that they could not be treated as having relinquished their earlier claims in the same manner as the other 28 petitioners.
The Additional Government Pleader accordingly made a statement that the State would consider these two petitioners for appointment against unfilled Phase-I vacancies. The Court accepted that statement.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition insofar as 28 petitioners were concerned.
It held that their TAIT-2022 scores had ceased to remain valid once the TAIT-2025 results were declared and that their voluntary participation in TAIT-2025 prevented them from claiming appointment against old Phase-I TAIT-2022 vacancies.
The Court also declined to disturb an advanced recruitment process involving approximately 1.70 lakh candidates, particularly when reservation policy had changed in the meantime.
However, the petition survived for petitioner nos. 6 and 20, who had not appeared in TAIT-2025. The State’s statement that they would be considered for appointment against unfilled Phase-I vacancies was accepted.
The writ petition was therefore dismissed except qua these two petitioners, with no order as to costs.
Case Details
Case: Bhagwat Govindrao Zambre & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 8875 of 2026
Judges: Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale
Date: 25 August 2026
Result: Petition dismissed except as regards petitioner nos. 6 and 20, whom the State agreed to consider for unfilled Phase-I TAIT-2022 vacancies.
