Supreme Court Refuses To Review Judgment Mandating TET, Extends Deadline For In-Service Teachers

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a batch of review petitions challenging its 2025 judgment in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra, which held that in-service school teachers are required to qualify the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to continue in service and for promotions. However, invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court extended the deadline for in-service teachers for acquiring the qualification by one year, until August 31, 2028.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan rejected contentions raised by States, teachers' associations and individual teachers that the requirement of qualifying TET could not be imposed on teachers appointed before the enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). The Court held that there was no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of its earlier judgment.

In its original judgment, the Court had ruled that in-service teachers imparting lessons to students and having more than five years of service left before retirement must qualify TET within two years from September 1, 2025, failing which they would not be entitled to continue in service. It had also held that any teacher aspiring for promotion must necessarily qualify TET.

The review petitioners argued that the RTE Act and the 2017 amendment thereto could not be applied retrospectively to teachers appointed before those enactments. They also relied on provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Act and an NCTE notification issued in 2010 to contend that existing teachers were exempt from the requirement of acquiring TET qualifications. Further, they submitted that imposing TET midway through service amounted to an impermissible change in service conditions.

Rejecting these arguments, the Court held that Section 23 of the RTE Act itself contemplated that teachers already in service at the commencement of the Act were required to acquire the prescribed minimum qualifications within a specified period. The Bench observed that while Section 23(1) refers to "any person" eligible for appointment as a teacher, the provisos to Section 23(2) specifically refer to "a teacher" and "every teacher", thereby indicating the legislature's intention that in-service teachers must also meet the prescribed qualifications.

The Court further held that the 2017 amendment merely extended the compliance window for teachers who had not acquired the qualifications within the original timeframe and did not introduce any retrospective disqualification. It noted that the statutory framework recognised existing appointments while requiring teachers to obtain minimum qualifications in the larger interest of maintaining educational standards.

Addressing reliance on Section 12A of the NCTE Act, the Court observed that while the first proviso protected existing teachers from removal solely on the ground of lacking prescribed qualifications, the second proviso expressly required such qualifications to be acquired within the period stipulated under the NCTE Act or the RTE Act.

The Bench also rejected the argument that TET constituted a new service condition imposed retrospectively. Referring to its earlier observations in Anjuman, it reiterated that "TET is not only a mandatory eligibility requirement but it is a constitutional necessity flowing from the right to quality education under Article 21A." The Court held that the statutory provisions merely afforded teachers time to comply with minimum qualification requirements and could not be viewed as introducing a new condition of service.

The States had also warned that strict implementation of the judgment could result in a large number of teachers losing their jobs, adversely affecting public education. While acknowledging these concerns, the Court emphasised that the RTE Act is a child-centric legislation and that the interests of children must remain paramount.

"Service of teachers cannot come at the cost of educational future of the children," the Bench observed. It noted that more than 15 years had elapsed since the RTE Act came into force and nearly a decade since the compliance window granted by the 2017 amendment.

At the same time, the Court considered the practical repercussions of displacement of a substantial number of teachers and the possible impact on school education. Balancing these concerns, it extended the period for acquiring TET qualification from two years to three years. Accordingly, eligible in-service teachers must now obtain TET qualification by August 31, 2028, instead of August 31, 2027.

The Court also directed States and competent authorities to conduct TET examinations periodically, preferably twice every year with an interval of about six months between examinations, so that teachers have adequate opportunities to comply with the requirement.

Making it clear that the extension was a one-time measure, the Bench observed that no further prayer for extension of time would be entertained. With this limited modification, all review petitions were dismissed.

Headnote

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Section 23(2) Provisos & Right to Quality Education — Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is a mandatory eligibility requirement and a constitutional necessity flowing from Article 21-A of the Constitution of India - The statutory framework of Section 23 does not operate retrospectively to invalidate past appointments; instead, it provides a prospective, time-bound mechanism for in-service teachers to secure the minimum qualifications necessary to maintain elementary education standards - The services of teachers cannot be protected at the cost of the educational future of children.

National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 - Section 12A — Power of Council to determine minimum standards — The second proviso to Section 12A reinforces the legislative mandate that the minimum qualifications of a teacher must be acquired within the period specified under the RTE Act - Subordinate notifications cannot override the clear and unambiguous command of the parent statute.

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142 — Power to do complete justice — Taking a pragmatic approach to avoid the sudden displacement of a substantial number of in-service teachers and consequent disruption to school-going children, the timeline to qualify the TET is modified - The timeline originally granted in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra is extended from 2 (two) years to 3 (three) years - In-service teachers must acquire the TET qualification by August 31, 2028, instead of August 31, 2027 - States are directed to conduct the TET periodically, preferably twice a year.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 114 & Order XLVII Rule 1 — Scope of Review — A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an "appeal in disguise" - An error on the face of the record must be self-evident and strike the court immediately, without requiring a long-drawn process of reasoning where two opinions are conceivable - Perceived career insecurity or difficulties faced by teachers do not constitute a palpable error on the face of the record warranting a review of the final judgment. [Relied on Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. State (UT of Delhi), (1980) 2 SCC 167; Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. A.S. Raghavendra, (2024) 6 SCC 418; Anjuman Ishaat-e Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912; State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO, (2005) 3 SCC 752; Paras 15-34]

Case : State of UP v Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust and others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 568

Clck here to read the judgment