The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is a mandatory qualification rooted in Article 21-A of the Constitution, which guarantees every child the right to quality education.
The Court held that the TET requirement derives directly from Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act).
It further clarified that no exemption contained in subordinate legislation, government notifications, or state rules can override the parent statute.
Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petitions
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan dismissed more than 65 review petitions challenging the Court’s earlier judgment in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra.
Several States, teachers’ associations, and in-service teachers had sought review of the decision.
In its earlier judgment, the Court had made TET qualification mandatory for continuation in service.
The Court had also granted a two-year period, from September 1, 2025, to August 31, 2027, for teachers with more than five years of remaining service to obtain the qualification.
Teachers seeking promotion were required to clear TET regardless of their remaining service tenure.
Arguments Raised by Petitioners
The petitioners argued that the Court had incorrectly interpreted the RTE Act.
They also claimed that the earlier judgment violated the principle of audi alteram partem and caused hardship to teachers who were appointed under rules that did not require TET.
Considering the significance of the issue, the Court heard the review petitions in open court and allowed detailed arguments from senior counsel.
Court Interprets Section 23 of the RTE Act
The Bench closely examined Section 23 of the RTE Act.
It distinguished between the phrase “any person” in Section 23(1) and the expression “a teacher” in the proviso to Section 23(2).
According to the Court, the distinction is deliberate.
Section 23(1) governs future appointments, while the proviso to Section 23(2) applies specifically to teachers already in service.
The Court also held that the 2017 Amendment Act merely extended the compliance period and did not introduce any fresh retrospective obligation.
The Bench observed:
“Even if certain exemptions are traceable in the subordinate legislation, including any notification, governing the stipulation of minimum qualifications, such subordinate legislation cannot override the parent statute.”
Children’s Right to Education Takes Priority
The Supreme Court emphasised that the RTE Act is a child-centric legislation.
The Bench stated that the interests of children must take precedence over service-related concerns of teachers.
The Court observed:
“Service of teachers cannot come at the cost of educational future of the children.”
At the same time, the judges acknowledged that sudden displacement of a large number of teachers could adversely affect schools and students.
The Court therefore considered the practical consequences of strict implementation.
Deadline Extended Under Article 142
To balance educational continuity with statutory compliance, the Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The Bench extended the deadline for acquiring TET qualification by one year.
Teachers now have until August 31, 2028, to obtain the qualification.
The Court described the extension as a one-time measure and made it clear that it would not entertain any future request for additional time.
Directions to States
The Supreme Court directed all States and competent authorities to conduct TET examinations regularly.
The Court advised authorities to hold the examination at least twice a year, preferably at six-month intervals.
This would provide eligible teachers with sufficient opportunities to qualify before the deadline expires.
Final Outcome
The Supreme Court dismissed all review petitions and reaffirmed that TET remains an essential qualification under the RTE Act.
The Court held that subordinate legislation cannot dilute statutory requirements enacted by Parliament.
While granting a one-year extension until August 31, 2028, the Bench reiterated that the quality of education guaranteed under Article 21-A must remain the primary consideration.
Case Details
Cause Title: State of U.P. v. Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust and Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 597
