Is TET Necessary For Special Educators? Supreme Court Asks Bihar Govt To Clarify

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (28.07.2026) asked whether the Teachers' Eligibility Test (TET) is a mandatory qualification for Special Educators, and directed the Bihar government to file an affidavit answering whether the rules requiring the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) and the Teachers' Eligibility Test (TET) were amended before notifying the advertisement for the posts of Special Educator in Bihar.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu was hearing a batch of petitions concerning appointments of Special Educators across states, including Bihar.

Questioning the amicus curiae's contention that TET is a mandatory qualification, the bench observed that in the Bihar rules, there was no such condition prescribed. “Where is the requirement of TET in your rules?”, Justice Datta asked.. It questioned the amicus curiae's contention, observing that the TET requirement in the rules applies to a school teacher, not a special school teacher.

“Rule III will not apply because it applies to a school teacher, which does not include a special school teacher”, the bench said. “Only qualification as per RCI shall be applicable”, it reiterated.

The petitioners also pointed to an affidavit filed by the RCI itself, which stated that the TET is not mandatory, and if TET is to be made mandatory, it could not be a general TET - it would have to be a TET specifically designed for special children.

The dispute is regarding TET's applicability for Special Educator posts in Bihar. The amicus curiae informed the Court that of 7,279 sanctioned posts, 816 were reserved for contractual teachers. Documents were verified for 788 candidates, of whom only 139 candidates possessed both RCI and TET qualifications. The remaining 649 candidates, lacking TET qualification, were not recommended for appointment.

The petitioners submitted that “139 had TET and RCI out of which only 134 have been appointed while the Court had directed appointment of all 139. Some problems with 5 of them and the 134 can be issued appointment letters only after administration formalities are done, including approval of the State's cabinet.” The petitioners sought a direction to issue appointment letters within four weeks for the candidates found eligible and suitable. The bench declined to fix a timeline, observing that “it all depends on how frequently the cabinet sits.”

The Court directed the Bihar government to file an affidavit addressing the issue.

Although the bench was inclined to pass final orders, the matter was adjourned for a week at the request of the amicus curiae, who sought time to seek instructions from the concerned authorities.

The matter is next listed for 04.08.2026, when the Court will also take up cases relating to Delhi, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, and Madhya Pradesh.

Case Title: Rajneesh Kumar Pandey v Union of India and Ors., WP (C) No 132/2016