01Facts
The Appellants (State educational authorities) challenged a Writ Court order dated 07.09.2023, which directed the approval of the first Respondent's appointment as a teacher at RCM High School (a minority institution)
p. 2The primary contention revolved around whether the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualification is mandatory for such approvals in minority schools.
p. 2This appeal was heard amidst evolving jurisprudence regarding the applicability of the Right to Education (RTE) Act to minority institutions
p. 302Issues
i.1. Whether the TET qualification is a mandatory requirement for the approval of teaching staff appointments in minority educational institutions
p. 2, para 2ii.2. Whether the state can grant approval for appointments in minority institutions while the issue of TET applicability is pending before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
p. 3, para 303Law Applied
Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, which mandates minimum qualifications for teachers
¶ 169Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust vs. The State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 1063), which held that TET is a "constitutional necessity" under Article 21A and a mandatory eligibility requirement for all teachers
¶ 169, 204Pramathi Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014), which had previously granted sweeping exemptions to minority institutions under Article 30(1), leading to a Reference to a larger Constitution Bench
¶ 175, 187Government Order G.O.Ms.No.300 dated 24.12.2025, which governs approvals subject to judicial outcomes
¶ 6Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 Section 2Section 12Section 23
04Reasoning
The Court reasoned that while TET is established as an essential qualification to maintain uniform teaching standards, the specific exemption for minority institutions remains a subjudice matter because a Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court referred the Pramathi ruling for reconsideration by a Constitution Bench
¶ 2, 5The Court observed that Article 30(1) should not be used to evade regulatory standards intended for the "best interest of children"
¶ 173Consequently, the Court found that grant of approval for teachers lackings TET in minority schools cannot be absolute. It reconciled the mandatory nature of TET with the pending Reference by determining that any such approvals must be conditional, aligning with the State's policy in G.O.Ms.No.300
¶ 705Holding
The High Court disposed of the Writ Appeal by modifying the approach to appointment approvals.
¶ 8It held that while the issue is pending before the Constitution Bench, authorities may grant approval to teachers in minority institutions provided they "clearly indicate" that such approval is strictly subject to the final outcome of the Reference pending before the Supreme Court of India.
¶ 7The Court reiterated that TET is generally mandatory, but for the interim period, G.O.Ms.No.300 dated 24.12.2025 shall govern the conditional nature of these appointments.
¶ 6-7Original Court PDF
The Director of Elementary EducationvsJosephine Sinthiya
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
