Supreme Court Mandates TET Qualification For Teachers In Non-Minority Schools; Allows Time For In-Service Teachers To Clear Test

The Supreme Court today 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..

As regards those teachers appointed prior to the enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, 2009 ("RTE Act") and have more than five years of service left, the Court granted a time of two years to pass the Teachers' Eligibility Test ("TET").

At the same time, the Court held that the TET requirement under the RTE Act wouldn't apply to minority educational institutions, till the larger bench decides the issue regarding the applicability of the RTE Act to minority schools.

For context, on July 29, 2011, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) made TET mandatory for a person to be eligible for appointment as a Teacher.

However, considering the ground realities, a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan also held that those in-service teachers who have less than five years of service left need not qualify for the TET requirement unless they seek promotion.

The Court pronounced the judgment in a batch of appeals dealing with various issues, including whether the RTE Act is applicable to minority institutions and if so, can the teachers in the minority institutions be required to qualify for the TET as mandatory and whether that violates Article 30.

It said: "On the applicability of TET to in-service teachers, we have held in clear terms that those aspiring for appointment and those in-service teachers aspiring for appointment through promotion must qualify the TET or else they would have no right for the consideration of their candidature.

But at the same time kept the ground realities and practical challenges and this is where we have issued directions under Article 142.

Bearing in mind the predicament, we invoke Article 142 and direct that those teachers who have less than five years of service left as on date be continued in service till they attain the age of superannuation without qualifying the TET.

However, we make it clear that if any such teacher (having less than five years' service left) aspires for promotion, he will not be considered eligible without he/she having qualified the TET.

In so far as in-service teachers recruited prior to enactment of the Act, and having more than five years to retire, they shall be under an obligation to qualify the TET within 2 years in order to continue in service. If any such teacher fails to qualify the TET within the time we allowed, they will have to quit service. They may be compulsorily retired and paid terminal benefits. To qualify for the terminal benefits, such teachers must have put in the qualifying service in accordance with the rules. If any teacher has not put in the qualifying service and there is some deficiency, this case may be considered by appropriate department by said representation.

Subject to what we have said above, it is reiterated that those aspiring for appointment and those in-service teachers aspiring for appointment by promotion must, however, qualify the TET; or else, they would have no right of consideration of their candidature."

The Court also doubted the 2014 Constitution Bench judgment which held that the RTE Act won't apply to minority schools. However, till the time a larger bench decided the reference, the Court held that the TET requirement won't apply to the teachers in minority schools.

"We hold that the provisions of the RTE Act have to be complied with by all schools as defined in Section 2(n) of the RTE Act except the schools established and administered by the minority – whether religious or linguistic – till such time the reference is decided," the Court said.

Also from the judgment - Supreme Court Doubts Correctness Of Judgment Exempting Minority Schools From RTE Act; Refers To CJI

Case Details: ANJUMAN ISHAAT E TALEEM TRUST v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS|C.A. No. 1385/2025

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 861