The Supreme Court has dismissed a batch of review petitions challenging its decision in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan held that the earlier judgment contained no error apparent on the face of the record.
The Court reaffirmed that the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) remains a mandatory qualification for in-service teachers seeking continuation in service and for those aspiring for promotion.
However, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Bench extended the compliance period by one year.
Teachers now have until August 31, 2028, to obtain the required qualification.
The judgment was delivered on May 29, 2026, in State of U.P. v. Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust & Ors.
Background of the Review Petitions
Various State Governments, teachers’ associations, organisations, and individual teachers filed the review petitions.
They challenged a limited portion of the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment.
In that decision, the Court directed teachers recruited before the enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) to clear the TET if they had more than five years of service remaining.
The Court also required teachers seeking promotion to qualify the TET regardless of their remaining years in service.
The petitioners argued that the judgment incorrectly interpreted the RTE Act and unfairly affected teachers who had entered service under earlier recruitment rules.
Petitioners Challenge TET Requirement
The petitioners raised several objections.
They argued that authorities could not apply the RTE Act and the 2017 Amendment retrospectively to teachers appointed before the legislation came into force.
They relied on the first proviso to Section 12A of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Act, 1993.
According to them, teachers appointed before the NCTE Amendment Act, 2011 could not lose their jobs for failing to acquire qualifications introduced later.
The petitioners also contended that imposing TET midway through a teacher’s career amounted to an unfair change in service conditions.
Some petitioners relied on an NCTE notification dated August 23, 2010, which they claimed exempted certain teachers from acquiring TET qualifications.
Several petitioners also sought additional time to comply.
Court Rejects Retrospective Application Argument
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the RTE Act was being applied retrospectively.
The Bench closely examined Section 23 of the Act.
It noted that Section 23(1) uses the phrase “any person” when referring to future appointments.
In contrast, the first proviso to Section 23(2) specifically refers to “a teacher” already in service.
According to the Court, this distinction clearly shows that Parliament intended existing teachers to acquire the prescribed qualifications within a specified period.
The Bench also held that the 2017 Amendment merely extended the compliance window and did not create any new retrospective disqualification.
NCTE Act Supports the Requirement
The Court also rejected the petitioners’ reliance on Section 12A of the NCTE Act.
The Bench observed that the petitioners focused only on the first proviso while ignoring the second.
The second proviso specifically requires teachers to acquire minimum qualifications within the period prescribed under either the NCTE Act or the RTE Act.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the NCTE framework supports, rather than contradicts, the TET requirement.
TET Is Not a New Service Condition
The Court disagreed with the argument that TET imposes a new service condition.
It noted that the relevant provisions of Section 23 had never been directly challenged in the original proceedings.
The Bench held that Parliament introduced the qualification requirement to improve educational standards.
Reaffirming its earlier view, the Court stated:
“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 added that the statutory framework aims to strengthen elementary education and improve teaching quality.
Children’s Interests Must Prevail
Several States argued that strict enforcement could lead to the removal of a large number of teachers and disrupt public education.
The Supreme Court acknowledged these concerns.
However, it pointed out that nearly fifteen years had passed since the RTE Act came into force and almost a decade had elapsed since the 2017 Amendment.
The Court observed that teachers had already received ample time to obtain the qualification.
The Bench warned that allowing unqualified teachers to remain indefinitely would undermine educational standards.
Emphasising the child-centric nature of the RTE Act, the Court stated that teachers’ service interests cannot outweigh children’s educational rights.
Limited Relief Under Article 142
Although the Court found no basis for review, it considered the practical difficulties highlighted during the hearing.
To ensure a balanced approach, the Bench invoked Article 142 of the Constitution.
It extended the compliance period from two years to three years.
As a result, the final deadline for qualifying the TET now stands at August 31, 2028.
The Court also directed States and competent authorities to conduct TET examinations regularly.
It advised authorities to hold the examination preferably twice each year, with a gap of about six months.
This would provide teachers with adequate opportunities to comply.
Final Directions
The Supreme Court made it clear that it would not entertain any further request for extension.
Apart from extending the deadline to August 31, 2028, the Court refused to modify its earlier judgment.
The Bench concluded that the review petitioners had failed to establish any error apparent on the face of the record.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed all review petitions while granting the limited extension for acquiring TET qualification.
