Introduction
The Supreme Court of India has recently taken cognizance of a significant challenge to a Government Resolution (GR) issued by the State of Maharashtra that revises the norms for sanctioning teaching posts in schools. The plea, filed by an association of private educational institutions, questions the legality of the State’s departure from the pupil–teacher ratio (PTR) norms prescribed under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). The matter raises important constitutional and statutory questions concerning federal powers, the scope of State authority, and the fundamental objective of ensuring access to quality elementary education.
By issuing notice to the Maharashtra government and listing the matter for further hearing, the Supreme Court has opened the door for a deeper examination of whether administrative convenience can override statutory mandates under the RTE Act.
Background of the Case
The petition has been filed by Sindhudurg Zilla Shikshan Sanstha Chalak Mandal, Pandur (Registered), an association representing private educational institutions in Maharashtra. The association approached the Supreme Court after the Bombay High Court dismissed its challenge to the State’s Government Resolution dated 15 March 2024.
The impugned GR revises the method by which teaching posts are sanctioned in primary, upper primary, and secondary schools. According to the petitioners, this revision fundamentally alters the way pupil–teacher ratios are calculated, with serious consequences for schools, teachers, and students alike.
On January 23, 2026, a Bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe issued notice to the State of Maharashtra and sought its response to the plea. The matter has been listed for further hearing on March 13, 2026.
Core Issue: Class-wise vs Section-wise PTR
At the heart of the dispute lies the interpretation and implementation of pupil–teacher ratio norms under the RTE Act. The Act, along with its Schedule, mandates that PTR must be maintained on a class-wise basis. This means that each class must have a prescribed number of teachers to ensure effective teaching and individual attention to students.
However, the Maharashtra GR adopts a different approach. Instead of calculating PTR class-wise, it treats an entire section—such as primary, upper primary, or secondary—as a single unit. Under this system, the total number of students across several classes is considered together for determining the number of sanctioned teachers.
The petition argues that this section-wise calculation is fundamentally inconsistent with the RTE Act. In practical terms, it could result in a situation where multiple classes are handled by a single teacher, particularly in schools with lower enrolment.
Impact on Small and Rural Schools
One of the most serious concerns raised in the plea is the potential impact of the GR on small and neighbourhood schools, especially in rural and semi-urban areas. Many such schools operate with limited student strength but serve as the only accessible educational institutions for children in their vicinity.
Under the revised norms, schools that do not meet a specified student threshold may be sanctioned only one teacher for several classes. The petitioners warn that this could make it practically impossible for such schools to function effectively, ultimately leading to their closure.
The plea highlights that the burden of these closures would disproportionately fall on vulnerable groups, including children from rural backgrounds and girl children. This, the petition argues, would directly undermine the core objective of the RTE Act—to ensure universal access to elementary education.
Statutory Scheme of the RTE Act
The challenge to the Maharashtra GR is rooted in the statutory framework of the RTE Act. Section 25 of the Act makes it mandatory for schools to maintain the pupil–teacher ratio as specified in the Schedule. This requirement is not merely advisory but statutory in nature.
Further, the petition underscores that the power to amend the Schedule to the RTE Act lies exclusively with the Central government under Section 20 of the Act. States, according to the petitioners, do not possess the authority to alter or dilute these norms through executive resolutions.
By effectively changing the basis of PTR calculation, the Maharashtra government is accused of indirectly amending the Schedule, something it is not empowered to do.
Federalism and Limits of State Power
The case also raises broader constitutional questions concerning the division of powers between the Centre and the States. Education, while falling under the Concurrent List, is governed by central legislation in the form of the RTE Act. Once Parliament has laid down minimum standards, States are expected to comply with them, not dilute them.
The plea contends that allowing States to unilaterally modify core requirements such as PTR would defeat the uniformity intended by the RTE framework and lead to unequal standards of education across the country.
Proceedings Before the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe issued notice to the State and agreed to examine the legality of the GR. The petitioners have also sought an interim stay on the operation of the impugned resolution, arguing that its continued implementation could cause irreversible damage to the education system.
Senior Advocate BH Marlapalle appeared on behalf of the petitioner association, while the petition was filed through Advocate-on-Record Ajit Pravin Wagh.
The Court’s decision to issue notice indicates that it considers the questions raised to be of substantial importance, not just for Maharashtra but for the implementation of the RTE Act nationwide.
Why This Case Matters
This case has far-reaching implications for education policy, teacher employment, and children’s rights in India. If States are permitted to alter PTR norms through executive action, it could lead to a gradual erosion of the minimum standards guaranteed under the RTE Act.
On the other hand, the State may argue administrative efficiency and optimal use of resources, particularly in areas with declining student enrolment. The Supreme Court’s task will be to balance these considerations against the statutory and constitutional mandate to provide quality education.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s scrutiny of the Maharashtra Government Resolution on school teacher posts brings the focus back to the foundational principles of the Right to Education Act. At stake is not merely a technical question of teacher allocation, but the broader issue of whether executive convenience can override statutory safeguards designed to protect children’s right to education.
As the matter awaits further hearing, the outcome will likely shape how States across India interpret and implement pupil–teacher ratio norms. The decision could reaffirm the binding nature of the RTE Act’s standards or open the door to greater flexibility for States—making it a landmark moment in India’s education jurisprudence.
Also Read
PAID Internship Opportunity: Square Circle Clinic (NALSAR), Apply Now!
Supreme Court Stays Punjab & Haryana High Court Order on Tuition Fee During Veterinary Internship
