TET Qualification is Mandatory for In-Service Teachers Under Section 23 of the RTE Act

Following the judgment in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912), a batch of over 65 review petitions was filed by various States, teachers' associations, and individual teachers.

The original judgment held that the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is a mandatory qualification for all in-service teachers (recruited prior to the RTE Act) and provided a two-year window for those with more than five years of service remaining to qualify, failing which they would face termination.

The petitioners sought a review on the grounds that the mandate was being applied retrospectively to teachers appointed under previous service rules and that it violated principles of service jurisprudence regarding changes to service conditions.

1. Whether the requirement of qualifying the TET under Section 23 of the RTE Act can be applied to teachers appointed prior to April 1, 2010, without being hit by the rule against retrospectivity.

2. Whether the imposition of TET as a mandatory qualification for existing teachers constitutes an arbitrary change in service conditions.

3. Whether the two-year timeline granted under Article 142 for compliance was sufficient given the potential for large-scale displacement of teachers.

Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), specifically the first and second provisos to sub-section (2), which mandate that teachers not possessing minimum qualifications at the commencement of the Act must acquire them within a specified timeframe.

Section 12A of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Act, 1993, which subjects the continuance of recruited persons to the acquisition of qualifications within the period specified in the RTE Act.

Precedents regarding the limited scope of review were applied, specifically Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. State (UT of Delhi) and Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. A.S. Raghavendra.

The Court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure substantial justice.

The Court rejected the argument of retrospectivity, noting that Section 23(2) of the RTE Act explicitly differentiates between "any person" (future recruits) and "a teacher" or "every teacher" (in-service staff), thereby demonstrating a clear legislative intent to cover existing teachers from the Act's inception.

The 2017 Amendment Act was viewed not as a retroactive burden but as a statutory "compliance window" that extended the time for existing teachers to meet the standards.

Regarding service conditions, the Court held that since the TET is a constitutional necessity under Article 21-A to ensure quality education, its enforcement cannot be viewed as an "evil" or an illegal change in service rules.

The Court emphasized that the RTE Act is child-centric; thus, the interests of teachers cannot outweigh the educational future of students.

While finding no "error apparent on the face of the record" to justify a total reversal of the judgment, the Court acknowledged the pragmatic difficulties and the risk of educational disruption raised by the States.

Acting under Article 142, the Court granted a pragmatic extension: the period for in-service teachers to qualify the TET was increased from two years to three years, setting the final deadline as August 31, 2028.

The Court directed States to conduct TET examinations at least twice a year to facilitate compliance and clarified that no further extensions would be granted.