The Supreme Court has refused to review its 2025 judgment, which made it compulsory for in-service school teachers to qualify the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to continue in service and become eligible for promotion.
The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan on Friday rejected a batch of petitions filed by various State governments, teachers’ associations and individual teachers, who had contended that the requirement of clearing TET could not be imposed on teachers appointed prior to the enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009.
The Bench held that the review petitions did not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record, and therefore, no ground was made out to invoke the Court’s review jurisdiction under Article 137 of the Constitution.
The Apex Court, however, exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant limited relief in the form of additional time for compliance and extended the deadline for acquiring the qualification by one year, till August 31, 2028
In its original judgment, the Court had held that in-service teachers engaged in classroom instruction and having more than five years of service remaining before superannuation must qualify TET within two years from September 1, 2025. It had further held that failure to obtain the qualification within the stipulated period would render such teachers ineligible to continue in service. The Court had also mandated TET qualification as a prerequisite for promotion within the teaching cadre.
The review petitioners had argued that neither the RTE Act nor its 2017 amendment could be applied retrospectively to teachers appointed prior to their enforcement. It was contended that the statutory framework did not authorise the imposition of fresh eligibility conditions on existing employees. Reliance was also placed on provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Act and a 2010 notification issued by the NCTE, which, according to the petitioners, exempted serving teachers from acquiring TET qualification. It was further argued that mandating TET during service amounted to an impermissible alteration of service conditions.
Rejecting these submissions, the Supreme Court held that Section 23 of the RTE Act expressly contemplated that teachers already in service at the commencement of the statute would be required to acquire the prescribed minimum qualifications within the timeframe stipulated under law. The Bench observed that while Section 23(1) refers to “any person” for appointment as a teacher, the provisos to Section 23(2) specifically employ the expressions “a teacher” and “every teacher”, thereby manifesting legislative intent to include in-service teachers within its ambit.
The Court further held that the 2017 amendment did not operate to retrospectively disqualify serving teachers, but only extended the time period for compliance with qualification requirements. It noted that the statutory scheme preserved existing appointments while simultaneously mandating acquisition of minimum qualifications to ensure maintenance of educational standards and improvement in teaching quality.
On reliance placed on Section 12A of the NCTE Act, the Court observed that although the first proviso protected serving teachers from termination solely on the ground of lacking prescribed qualifications, the second proviso expressly required such qualifications to be obtained within the period prescribed under the RTE Act or the NCTE framework. The Bench held that the provisions must be harmoniously construed so as to advance the object of ensuring qualified teaching personnel in schools.
The Court also rejected the argument that TET constituted a new and retrospective service condition. Relying on its earlier decision in Anjuman, the Bench reiterated that TET is not merely an eligibility criterion but flows from the constitutional mandate under Article 21A guaranteeing the right to quality education. It held that the statutory regime only provided a reasonable window for compliance and did not impose an impermissible alteration of service conditions.
Several States had submitted that enforcement of the judgment would result in large-scale displacement of teachers and disrupt functioning of public education systems. While acknowledging the administrative concerns, the Court emphasised that the RTE Act is a child-centric welfare legislation and that the rights of students must remain paramount.
The Bench observed that service interests of teachers cannot override the constitutional right of children to quality education. It noted that more than fifteen years had elapsed since the enactment of the RTE Act, and nearly a decade had passed since the extension granted under the 2017 amendment. Despite this, a substantial number of teachers had not yet obtained the prescribed qualification.
At the same time, the Court took note of the potential systemic disruption that could arise if a large body of teachers were rendered ineligible simultaneously. Balancing competing equities, the Bench invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to extend the compliance period from two years to three years.
Accordingly, in-service teachers covered by the judgment will now be required to obtain TET qualification by August 31, 2028, instead of the earlier deadline of August 31, 2027.
To ensure effective implementation, the Court directed State governments and competent authorities to conduct TET examinations regularly, preferably twice a year with a gap of approximately six months, to enable adequate opportunities for compliance.
Clarifying that the extension was a one-time measure grounded in equity, the Bench categorically held that no further extension of time would be granted in future.
The judgment effectively grants in-service teachers a final opportunity to obtain the prescribed qualification, while reaffirming the Supreme Court’s consistent position that minimum professional standards for teachers form an integral component of the constitutional guarantee of quality education under Article 21A of the Constitution.
The post Supreme Court upholds mandatory TET requirement for in-service school teachers appeared first on India Legal.