The Supreme Court while delivering a significant judgment on the applicability of the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), held that qualifying the Teachers’ Eligibility Test (TET) is mandatory for those aspiring for appointment as teachers and also in-service teachers aspiring for promotions. The Bench comprised Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan.
The Court examined two core issues: (i) whether the State can mandate TET qualification for recruitment in minority educational institutions and if such a condition infringes Article 30 rights; and (ii) whether teachers appointed prior to the 2011 NCTE notification with decades of service are required to clear TET for the purposes of promotion.
After a detailed review of the statutory scheme, constitutional provisions, and earlier precedents, the Court held that TET is a minimum qualification prescribed under Section 23 of the RTE Act. It applies not only to fresh appointments but also to promotions, thereby rejecting the contention that it is merely an eligibility test.
On the status of minority institutions, the Court noted that in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 1, the Constitution Bench had exempted both aided and unaided minority schools from the application of the RTE Act. However, the present Bench expressed doubts on whether this sweeping exclusion remains tenable in light of the constitutional mandate of Article 21A. It highlighted unresolved questions such as the effect of ignoring Article 29(2), and whether Section 12(1)(c) could have been read down instead of striking down the entire statute as applied to minorities. Consequently, the Court referred the issue to a Larger Bench for reconsideration, directing the Registry to place the appeals before the Chief Justice of India.
On the applicability of TET to non-minority schools, the Court issued categorical directions. All schools covered by Section 2(n) of the RTE Act, except minority institutions (pending the reference), must comply with the TET requirement. Thus, teachers in non-minority schools must possess TET qualification both for initial appointment and for promotions.
Addressing the plight of in-service teachers appointed before the enactment of the RTE Act, the Court invoked its powers under Article 142 to balance equity with legality. It ruled that:
• Teachers with less than five years of service left as on 01.09.2025 may continue till retirement without passing TET, but cannot be considered for promotion unless they qualify.
• Teachers with more than five years of service remaining must clear TET within two years from the judgment date to continue in service. Failure to do so would result in compulsory retirement, though they would be entitled to terminal benefits if otherwise eligible.
The Court recognized that many long-serving teachers without TET have imparted quality education, yet emphasized that statutory qualifications cannot be waived indefinitely. It clarified that all future appointments and promotions in non-minority schools must be strictly TET-compliant.
In conclusion, the judgment strikes a balance: while upholding the centrality of TET for quality education under Article 21A, it grants transitional relief to experienced in-service teachers and leaves the question of minority institutions’ exemption to be settled authoritatively by a Larger Bench.
Appearances:
For Appellant(s) : Mr. D. Kumanan, AOR; Mr. Amol Chitale, Adv.; Ms. Shrika Gautam, Adv.; Mr. Yuvraj Kashyap, Adv.; Mr. Sarthak Sharma, Adv.; Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR; Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv.; Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, Sr. Adv.; Mr. M. P. Parthiban, AOR; Mr. P. Wilson, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Priyaranjani Nagamuthu, Adv.; Mr. Lokesh Krishna, Adv.; Mr. Ankur Prakash, Adv.;Mr. Gautham Bhaskarr, Adv. ; Mrs. Priyanka Singh, Adv.
Mr. Priyanka Singh, Adv.; Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Adv.; Mr. Shreyas Kaushal, Adv.; Mr. Shreyash Kaushal, Adv.
Mr. S. Geyolin Selvam, Adv.; Mr. Alagiri K, Adv.; Mr. Shivansh Sharma, Adv.; Mr. K. Alagiri, Adv.; Mr. Geolin Selvam, Adv.; M/S. Shakil Ahmad Syed, AOR; Mr. ANS Nadkarni, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR; Ms. Nivedita Nair, Adv.; Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR; Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR; Mr. C. Kranthi Kumar, Adv.; Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv.; Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv.; Mr. Riddi Bose, Adv.; Ms. Racheeta Chawla, Adv.; Ms. Sampriti Bakshi, Adv.; Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv.; Ms. Rishi Agarwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr R Venkatramani, Attorney General for India; Mr. A. S. Rajnarayan, Adv.;Mr. Samindra Kumar Tripathi, Adv.; Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.; Ms. Neelam Singh, AOR; Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR; Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Adv.; Ms Manisha Karia, Sr Adv; Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR; Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv.; Mr. Tushar Srivastava, Adv.; Mr. Aaditya AniruddhaPande, AOR; Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Adv.; Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.; Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.; Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv.; Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.; Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR; Mr. Shashikant Pralhad Chaudhari, Adv.; Ms. Shalini Chandra, AOR; Mr. Abdulrahiman Tamboli, Adv.; Mr. Rahul Joshi, AOR; Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR; Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR; Mr. Vinamra Kopariha, Adv.; Mr. Yash S. Vijay, AOR
Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR; Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Adv.; Mr. Vivek Tiwari, Adv.; Mr. Bhoopesh Pandey, Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Dubey, Adv.; Mr. Jitesh Sharma, Adv.; Mr. Jagadish Kumar Jha, Adv.; Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey, Adv.; Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR; Mr. Rakesh Mishra, AOR; Ms. Savitri Verma, Adv.; Mr. Akshit Tyagi, Adv.
Mr. Mohnish Nirwan, Adv.; Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Abhishek Pratap Singh, Adv.; Mr. ShashankRai, Adv.
Mr. Jacob Benny, Adv.; Mr. Umesh Dubey, AOR; Ms. N. Kavitha Rameshwar, Adv.; Mr. A. Rajarajan,Adv.; Mrs. L. Vasuki Rajarajan, Adv.; Mr. R. Ramcandran, Adv.; Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR; Ms. Himani Bhatnagar, Adv.
Mr. Parth Sarathi, Adv.; Mrs. Shantha Devi Raman, Adv.; Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR; Ms. Tanisha Gopal, Adv.
Ms. Shuchi Singh, Mr. Santosh Kumar,, Adv.; Mr. Ayush Anand, AOR; Mr. Sai Shashank V,, Adv.; Mr. Praneet Pranav, Adv.; Mr. Bhaskar Gautam, Adv.; Dr. G Babu, Adv.; Mr. Mugundhan, Adv.; Mr. Monu Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, Adv.; Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, AOR;