TET Is Indeed A Qualification… Those Aspiring For Appointment Or Promotion Must Qualify TET: Supreme Court Sets Rigorous, Time-Bound Compliance For In-Service Teachers

“Quality of education is… inherent in the right to education under Article 21A”, Supreme Court in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. affirmed that the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is a mandatory “minimum qualification” under Section 23 of the RTE Act, applicable to appointments and promotions in all non-minority schools covered by Section 2(n). Recognizing practical hardships, the Court, invoking Article 142, carved a one-time calibrated transition: teachers with less than five years of service left may continue without TET till superannuation (no promotion); those with more than five years must clear TET within two years or exit service with terminal benefits as per rules.

The litigation arose from State notifications, NCTE regulations, and Government Orders that treated TET as essential for recruitment and promotion in classes I–VIII. Teachers appointed prior to August 23, 2010 (first NCTE notification) and July 29, 2011 (amendment) argued that TET was either inapplicable to them or only for initial appointment. Others contended that TET is not a “qualification” but a mere eligibility test. Minority managements urged Pramati to exclude their institutions entirely. The Supreme Court consolidated these threads while distinguishing the minority exemption question (now referred to a larger bench) from the TET-and-quality standards applicable across the system.

The Court parsed Section 23 RTE, NCTE’s notifications (23.08.2010; 29.07.2011), the 2014 Regulations, and the 2017 amendment inserting the second proviso to Section 23(2), which extended a last window for in-service teachers to acquire minimum qualifications. It held that passing TET is a constituent part of the minimum qualification prescribed by the designated academic authority (NCTE). Rejecting the contention that “appointment” in Section 23 covers only initial entry, the Court, relying on M. Ramachandran and K. Narayanan, held that “appointment” includes promotion. The Court observed: “We reiterate and hold that the TET is indeed a qualification, necessary to be held by a person seeking appointment as a teacher… Only upon… obtaining such qualification can he become eligible for appointment as a teacher.”

The Court anchored TET in Article 21A’s guarantee of quality elementary education, citing a line of precedents that stress that untrained or under-qualified teachers imperil children’s rights. It concluded that TET is a constitutional necessity to secure national benchmarks of teacher quality, echoing NCTE’s 2011 Guidelines. On promotions, the Court was categorical: “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.” Balancing equity, it exercised Article 142 to manage transition: teachers with <5 years to retire may continue without TET till superannuation but are ineligible for promotion without TET; those with ≥5 years must qualify TET within 2 years from the date of judgment, failing which they “shall have to quit service” (with terminal benefits subject to qualifying service). The Court also clarified an interim regime: “the provisions of the RTE Act have to be complied with by all schools… except the schools established and administered by the minority… till such time the reference is decided.”

The ruling cements TET as the non-negotiable floor for teacher quality in non-minority schools, extends it to promotions, and sets strict but humane timelines for in-service regularization. It reinforces that quality is inherent in Article 21A, and that eligibility and qualification converge where the law, regulations, and constitutional duty align.

Date of Decision: September 1, 2025