Supreme Court Judgement on TET for In-Service Teachers and Promotions of Teachers

Supreme Court Judgement on TET for In-Service Teachers and Promotions of Teachers. Supreme Court Mandates TET Qualification For Teachers In Non-Minority Schools; Allows Time For In-Service Teachers To Clear Teacher Eligibility Test.  The Supreme Court of India is addressing a number of civil appeals that challenge various judgments and orders from the Bombay and Madras High Courts on applicability of TET for Inservice Teachers and Promotion of Teachers. 

Supreme Court Judgment Summary: TET Requirements and Minority Institutions

• Case Details:
• Citation: 2025 INSC 1063
• Lead Case: Civil Appeal No. 1385/2025 (Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust vs. State of Maharashtra)
• Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
• Date: September 1, 2025

Key Issues Addressed

The Supreme Court examined two primary questions:

• Whether minority educational institutions must comply with Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) requirements
• Whether in-service teachers appointed before 2009 need TET qualification for promotions
• Background Context

Teacher Eligibility Test (TET):

• Introduced through RTE Act 2009 and NCTE notifications
• Made mandatory for teaching classes I-VIII from August 23, 2010
• Designed to ensure minimum professional teaching standards

Previous Legal Framework:

• Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (2014) exempted all minority institutions from RTE Act
• Created tension between Article 21A (right to education) and Article 30(1) (minority rights)
• Court's Analysis and Findings
• On Minority Institutions and RTE Act

Critical Assessment of Pramati Judgment: 

• The Court expressed serious concerns about the 2014 Constitution Bench decision:
• Overbroad Exemption: Pramati exempted entire RTE Act based solely on analysis of Section 12(1)(c) (25% reservation provision)
• Lack of Proportionality: No examination of other RTE provisions like teacher qualifications, infrastructure norms, or child safety measures

Practical Consequences: Led to surge in institutions seeking minority status to avoid RTE compliance

Constitutional Harmony: The Court emphasized that Articles 21A and 30(1) should be read harmoniously:

• Article 21A (right to education) is foundational for all other rights
• Article 30(1) protects minority character but doesn't grant immunity from reasonable regulation
• Most RTE provisions are regulatory safeguards, not ideological impositions
• On Section 12(1)(c) - 25% Reservation

The Court suggested the provision could be implemented without compromising minority character:
Minority institutions can admit disadvantaged children from their own community
"Weaker sections" and "disadvantaged groups" can include minority community members
Financial neutrality maintained through government reimbursement

 

SC Judgement On TET Requirements for Teachers

For New Appointments:
TET mandatory for all new teacher appointments in non-minority schools
Quality education requires qualified teachers as constitutional necessity

For In-Service Teachers: The Court balanced legal requirements with practical realities:

Teachers with less than 5 years to retirement:
May continue without TET until superannuation
Cannot be promoted without TET qualification

Teachers with more than 5 years to retirement:
Must qualify TET within 2 years or face compulsory retirement
Terminal benefits available subject to qualifying service period

For Promotions:
All teachers seeking promotion must have TET qualification regardless of service length
Reference to Larger Bench

Due to constitutional significance, the Court referred several questions to the Chief Justice for larger bench consideration:

• Whether Pramati judgment requires reconsideration
• Whether RTE Act actually infringes Article 30(1) rights
• Effect of non-consideration of Article 29(2) in Pramati
• Whether entire RTE Act should be ultra vires without examining all provisions

Immediate Orders

• Pending Reference Decision:
• All schools except minority institutions must comply with RTE Act
• TET requirements apply to non-minority institutions as outlined above

Appeals Disposition:

• Various appeals disposed of with above modifications
• Some appeals directed to Chief Justice for larger bench consideration
• Broader Implications

Supreme Court Verdict on Applicability of TET for Inservice Teachers in Telugu

సుప్రీంకోర్టు తీర్పు: ఉపాధ్యాయ నియామకాలు, పదోన్నతులకు TET తప్పనిసరి

ఉపాధ్యాయ అర్హత పరీక్ష (TET) యొక్క ప్రాముఖ్యతపై సుప్రీంకోర్టు ఈరోజు (నవంబర్ 02, 2025) ఒక కీలక తీర్పును వెలువరించింది. ఈ తీర్పు ప్రకారం, దేశవ్యాప్తంగా ఉపాధ్యాయుల నియామకాలు, పదోన్నతులకు TET అర్హత తప్పనిసరి. విద్యారంగంలో నాణ్యత, ప్రమాణాలను పెంపొందించడమే దీని ముఖ్య ఉద్దేశం అని కోర్టు స్పష్టం చేసింది.

ప్రధాన అంశాలు:

అన్ని పాఠశాలలకు వర్తింపు: మైనారిటీ సంస్థలు స్థాపించిన పాఠశాలలు మినహా, RTE చట్టం ప్రకారం అన్ని పాఠశాలలకు TET తప్పనిసరి.

మైనారిటీ విద్యాసంస్థల పై ప్రభావం: మైనారిటీ విద్యాసంస్థలు RTE చట్టం పరిధిలోకి వస్తాయా లేదా అనే అంశంపై సుప్రీంకోర్టు అయిదుగురు సభ్యుల ధర్మాసనానికి ఈ కేసును సూచించింది. తదుపరి తీర్పు వెలువడే వరకు, ఈ సంస్థలకు TET నిబంధనలు వర్తించవు.

ఇప్పటికే పనిచేస్తున్న ఉపాధ్యాయులకు నిబంధనలు:

ఐదేళ్లలోపు సర్వీసు ఉన్నవారు: పదవీ విరమణకు మరో ఐదేళ్ల లోపు సర్వీసు ఉన్న ఉపాధ్యాయులు TET ఉత్తీర్ణత పొందనప్పటికీ తమ ఉద్యోగంలో కొనసాగవచ్చు. అయితే, వీరికి పదోన్నతి కావాలంటే తప్పనిసరిగా TET ఉత్తీర్ణత సాధించాలి.

ఐదేళ్లకు మించి సర్వీసు ఉన్నవారు: ఐదేళ్లకు మించి సర్వీసు ఉన్న ఉపాధ్యాయులు రాబోయే రెండు సంవత్సరాల్లోగా తప్పనిసరిగా TET లో అర్హత పొందాలి. లేకపోతే, వారిని ఉద్యోగం నుండి తొలగించే అవకాశం ఉంటుంది.

పదోన్నతులకు TET: పదోన్నతులు కోరుకునే ఉపాధ్యాయులందరికీ, వారి సర్వీసు కాలంతో సంబంధం లేకుండా, TET అర్హత తప్పనిసరి అని కోర్టు స్పష్టం చేసింది.

ఈ తీర్పు దేశంలో విద్యా ప్రమాణాలను మరింత పటిష్టం చేసే దిశగా ఒక ముఖ్యమైన అడుగు. ఇది ఉపాధ్యాయులలో వృత్తిపరమైన అర్హతలను నిర్ధారించడంలో సహాయపడుతుంది, తద్వారా విద్యార్థులకు నాణ్యమైన విద్య అందుబాటులోకి వస్తుంది.

The judgment highlights tension between:

• Universal elementary education goals vs. minority institutional autonomy
• Quality education standards vs. practical teacher shortage concerns
• Constitutional harmony vs. rigid interpretation of rights

The Court emphasized that educational regulation should serve children's interests while respecting institutional diversity, suggesting the 2014 blanket exemption may have created more problems than it solved.

This judgment potentially marks a significant shift toward more inclusive application of educational standards while maintaining constitutional protections for minority institutions.

Whether the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is a mandatory prerequisite for teacher recruitment and promotion.

Whether the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 applies to minority educational institutions.

The appellants in these cases include minority institutions, government authorities, and individual teachers. The court notes that the issues are of "seminal importance" and have been consolidated for this judgment.

Conflicting High Court Judgments

The document details the conflicting views of the High Courts:

Bombay High Court: In one judgment, it held that the TET was mandatory for minority institutions. In another, it granted interim relief to teachers in a minority institution, staying directives that mandated the TET.

Madras High Court: In a common judgment, it held that the TET was mandatory for teachers in non-minority institutions but was inapplicable to minority institutions based on a previous Supreme Court decision. In another case, it also ruled that the TET did not bind a minority institution, upholding an order to approve the appointment of a teacher who hadn't qualified for it.

Previous Supreme Court Precedents

The court analyzes two key judgments that precede this case:

Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India: A three-judge bench upheld the RTE Act's constitutionality but exempted unaided minority institutions from its purview, arguing it infringed their rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 30(1). It held that the RTE Act was applicable to aided minority schools.

Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India: A five-judge Constitution Bench held that the RTE Act, as it applies to all minority schools (aided or unaided) covered under Article 30(1), is "ultra vires the Constitution" and is therefore not applicable to them. This decision overruled the previous judgment on the applicability to aided minority schools.

The Court's Analysis & Reasoning

The two-judge bench in the present case expresses serious doubts about the correctness of the  Pramati judgment and its blanket exemption of minority institutions. The court's analysis hinges on several points:

The Right to Education (Article 21A): The right to free and compulsory education for children aged 6 to 14 is a fundamental right that is foundational to a child's development and national goals. This right, the court argues, is an enabler of other fundamental rights.

The RTE Act's Purpose: The RTE Act is a legislative tool to enforce Article 21A, ensuring universal, quality education based on shared constitutional values. Its provisions, such as mandatory trained teachers, are essential for maintaining educational standards.

Misinterpretation of Article 30(1): The court argues that the right of minorities to establish and administer institutions under Article 30(1) is not absolute. It's a right intended to preserve cultural and linguistic identity, not to grant immunity from reasonable regulations that are in the national interest, like those ensuring quality education. The court points out that the 

Pramati judgment did not analyze how the entire RTE Act, beyond just the 25% reservation clause (Section 12(1)(c)), would conflict with Article 30(1).

Consequences of the Pramati Judgment: The court notes that the exemption granted to minority institutions by the Pramati judgment has created a "regulatory loophole". This has led to a significant number of schools seeking minority status post-2006, not necessarily to preserve their identity, but to bypass the RTE Act's obligations, such as the 25% quota for disadvantaged children. This, the court concludes, undermines the very goal of universal elementary education.

TET as a Qualification

TET as a Qualification: The court holds that the TET is a necessary "minimum qualification" for teachers, not just an eligibility criterion. It is mandatory for initial appointments and, importantly, for promotions. This is because the RTE Act's legislative intent is to ensure all teachers meet uniform quality standards for the benefit of the students.

Reference to a Larger Bench & Order

Given its doubts about the Pramati judgment, the two-judge bench cannot overturn it. Therefore, it has decided to refer the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration. It formulates a number of questions for the larger bench, including:

Whether the Pramati judgment's blanket exemption of minority institutions from the entire RTE Act was correctly decided.

Whether the RTE Act infringes upon minority rights, and if so, whether Section 12(1)(c) should have been "read down" instead of being declared ultra vires.

What is the effect of the non-consideration of Article 29(2) in the Pramati judgment.

Applicability of the TET to in-service teachers

Pending the decision of the larger bench, the court issues an interim order regarding the applicability of the TET to in-service teachers:

Teachers with less than five years of service left are exempt from the TET for continued service, but they must qualify for it if they want a promotion.

Teachers with more than five years of service left must pass the TET within two years to continue their employment. If they fail, they will be compulsorily retired, though their case for terminal benefits may be considered.

The Court's Ruling on Promotions

The court has definitively stated that qualifying the TET is a mandatory requirement for in-service teachers seeking promotion. 

The term 'appointment' in legal parlance includes not only initial recruitment but also promotion. The court's rationale is that this requirement is necessary to uphold the quality of education and is a "constitutional necessity" stemming from the right to quality education under Article 21A of the Constitution.

Download Supreme Court Verdict for more detailed analysis