TET Qualification Mandatory For All In-Service Teachers: Supreme Court Refuses Plea Seeking Review Of Its Judgment
The Bench dismissed the Review petitions on merits; compliance window extended by one year to August 31, 2028, with categorical direction that no further extension shall be entertained.
Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Manmohan, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the Teacher Eligibility Test is a constitutional necessity, not a procedural formality, flowing directly from the right to quality education guaranteed under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India. Holding that no exemption in subordinate legislation can override the unambiguous mandate of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the Court dismissed a batch of over sixty-five review petitions filed by States, teachers' associations, and individual in-service teachers challenging its earlier direction making TET qualification mandatory for continuation in service.
Dismissing the review petitions on merits, the Court nonetheless exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to extend the compliance deadline for acquiring TET qualification by one year, to August 31, 2028, while making it categorically clear that no further extension shall be entertained.
Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan observed, “Even if certain exemptions are traceable in the subordinate legislation, including any notification, governing the stipulation of minimum qualifications, such subordinate legislation cannot override the parent statute. The enquiry must, therefore, be anchored to the statute itself, the meaning of which is clear and admits of no real ambiguity… Having regard to the paramountcy of ensuring continuity in elementary education of children, we deem it appropriate to grant limited relief by extending the period earlier stipulated for acquiring the TET qualification, again, in exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution”.
“…The RTE Act is a child centric legislation and must be read so. Service of teachers cannot come at the cost of educational future of the children”, the Bench categorically remarked.
Vikramjit Banerjee, Additional Solicitor General and Senior Advocates Rakesh Dwivedi, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, Sanjay Jha, Salman Khurshid, V. Mohana, P.S. Patwalia appeared for the petitioners and Shrey Ravi Dambhare, AOR appeared for the respondent.
A batch of over sixty-five review petitions was filed by various States, teachers' associations, and individual in-service teachers challenging a specific portion of the Supreme Court's earlier judgment in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912.
In that judgment, the Court had held that qualifying the TET is a mandatory eligibility condition for continuation in service of in-service teachers, and had granted, under Article 142, a period of two years from September 1, 2025 to those teachers with more than five years of service remaining to acquire the qualification, failing which they would not be entitled to continue. Teachers aspiring for promotion were directed to qualify the TET irrespective of service remaining.
The review petitioners challenged the order under review on the ground that it erroneously interpreted the RTE Act, violated the principle of audi alteram partem, and caused immense injustice to in-service teachers appointed validly under prevailing rules. The Court, in the interest of justice, directed the review petitions to be heard in open court proceedings and permitted senior counsel to argue as if the issue were being decided afresh.
The Court noted that the plain language of Section 23, holding that the distinction between "any person" in sub-section (1) and "a teacher" in the first proviso to sub-section (2) is neither accidental nor inconsequential, the former governs future appointments prospectively, while the latter specifically addresses teachers already in service, affording them time to comply.
The 2017 Amendment Act, the Court held, merely extended that compliance window and introduced no fresh retrospectivity.
“Does the concern that teachers could likely get displaced and the interests of children being rendered a casualty, merit consideration to any extent? Whilst the requirement of qualifying TET cannot be diluted in its rigour, we cannot remain oblivious to the practical repercussions that may ensue if a substantial number of in-service teachers are put in jeopardy, due to the possible loss of their employment within a truncated time-frame, thereby adversely affecting the functioning of schools and, more importantly, the educational welfare of children at large”, it observed.
Accordingly, the Court extended the compliance deadline for acquiring TET qualification from two years to three years, directing that the qualification be obtained by August 31, 2028, in place of August 31, 2027, as originally directed. States and competent authorities were directed to conduct the TET periodically, and preferably twice every year at intervals of approximately six months, to afford eligible teachers a reasonable opportunity to comply.
The Court categorically declared that no further prayer for extension of time shall be entertained. All review petitions were dismissed with the aforesaid modification.
Cause Title: State of U.P. v. Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 597)
Appearances:
Petitioners: Vikramjit Banerjee, Additional Solicitor General, and Senior Advocates Rakesh Dwivedi, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, Sanjay Jha, Salman Khurshid, V. Mohana, P.S. Patwalia.
Respondent: Shrey Ravi Dambhare, AOR.