Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petitions on Mandatory TET for In-Service Teachers, But Extends Acquisition Deadline to August 31, 2028 Under Article 142

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a massive batch of review petitions challenging its earlier decision making the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) mandatory for all in-service school teachers. However, invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, a division bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan has extended the timeline for acquiring the TET qualification. In-service teachers who were appointed prior to the enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) now have their compliance deadline extended to August 31, 2028, to clear the examination, failing which they will not be entitled to continue in service.

Case Background

The legal dispute arose from the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912), referred to as the “order under review.” In that decision, the Court interpreted Section 23 of the RTE Act to hold that the requirement of qualifying the TET applies equally to in-service teachers (specifically those recruited prior to the enactment of the RTE Act who have more than five years left before superannuation) as a mandatory eligibility condition for continuation in service, and is a fortiori mandatory for promotion.

Using its powers under Article 142, the Court had initially granted these teachers a period of two years starting from September 1, 2025, to qualify the TET. Aggrieved by this direction, a batch of over 65 review petitions was filed by various State Governments, teachers’ associations, and individual teachers, claiming that the interpretation of Section 23 of the RTE Act was erroneous on the face of the record and that the timeline was too short.

Arguments of the Parties

The Supreme Court heard extensive arguments from various counsels, including the Additional Solicitor General Mr. Banerjee, and senior advocates Mr. Dwivedi, Dr. Singhvi, Mr. Rohatgi, Mr. Gupta, Mr. Patwalia, Mr. Giri, Mr. Khurshid, Mr. Jha, Ms. Mohana, Mr. Naidu, Mr. Rahim, Ms. Padmanabhan, and Mr. Bhattacharjee.

The petitioners’ contentions and objections were narrowed down to five primary points:

1. Retrospective Application of the RTE Act: The petitioners argued that the provisions of the RTE Act (which came into force on April 1, 2010) and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2017 cannot be applied retrospectively to disqualify teachers who were validly appointed under the prevailing rules prior to those dates.
2. Protection under the NCTE Act: Relying on the first proviso to Section 12A of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (NCTE Act), the petitioners argued that teachers recruited prior to the NCTE Amendment Act, 2011 cannot be removed solely on the ground of non-fulfillment of NCTE-prescribed qualifications.
3. Unlawful Change in Service Conditions: The petitioners contended that making TET mandatory mid-career violates the fundamental principles of service jurisprudence, which dictate that key conditions of service cannot be altered post-appointment to the prejudice of employees.
4. Exemption under NCTE Notification: The petitioners highlighted Paragraph 4(c) of the NCTE notification dated August 23, 2010, which they argued expressly exempted teachers appointed for Classes I to VIII prior to the notification from possessing the minimum qualifications, including the TET.
5. Inadequacy of the Two-Year Window: Without prejudice to other arguments, some petitioners argued that the two-year timeline was too short and sought an extension. State governments warned that massive teacher disqualifications would disrupt the public education system and harm school children.

The Court’s Analysis

1. Scope of Review Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court began by reaffirming the strictly limited scope of review petitions, noting that a review petition cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.” Justice Dipankar Datta, writing the judgment, cited the landmark ruling in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. State (UT of Delhi) (1980) 2 SCC 167, quoting Justice Krishna Iyer:

“A plea for review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result.”

The Court also referred to its recent ruling in Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. A.S. Raghavendra (2024) 6 SCC 418, reminding that:

• “A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.”
• “An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.”

2. Examination of Section 23 of the RTE Act

The Court conducted a literal analysis of Section 23 of the RTE Act. It pointed out that while Section 23(1) uses the phrase “Any person” (which applies prospectively to future appointments), the provisos to Section 23(2) specifically use the words “a teacher” and “every teacher.”

The Court observed:

“The distinction in phraseology employed by the Parliament is neither accidental nor inconsequential. While sub-section (1) governs eligibility for appointment of any person as a teacher prospectively, the first proviso to sub-section (2) specifically deals with teachers already borne in service on the date of commencement of the RTE Act and safeguards their continuance by affording them time to acquire the requisite qualifications. In other words, the usage of the word ‘teacher’ and not ‘person’ in the first proviso makes it clear that from the very inception of the RTE Act as it stood in 2009, the legislature intended the in-service teachers to also meet the prescribed minimum threshold.”

Addressing the 2017 Amendment Act, which inserted the second proviso with retrospective effect from April 1, 2015, the Court stated that it merely extended the window for compliance for teachers who were in service as of March 31, 2015, rather than introducing “retrospectivity.” The Court added that any subordinate legislation, including the NCTE Notification of August 23, 2010, “cannot override the parent statute.”

3. Section 12A of the NCTE Act

The Court noted that while petitioners relied heavily on the first proviso of Section 12A of the NCTE Act to argue against removal, they “lost sight of the second proviso, which reinforces the requirement under the RTE Act that the minimum qualifications be acquired within the stipulated period therein.”

4. Service Conditions and Constitutional Necessity

The Court rejected the argument that the TET requirement constituted an unlawful alteration of service conditions. It emphasized that neither of the provisos to Section 23(2) had been directly challenged in original legal proceedings. Reaffirming its observations in the Anjuman judgment, the Court held:

“‘TET is not only a mandatory eligibility requirement but it is a constitutional necessity flowing from the right to quality education under Article 21A’ and ‘we are alive to the settled legal position that operation of a statute can never be seen as an evil’…”

5. Public Interest and the Future of Children

Rejecting the argument that the potential displacement of thousands of teachers justified making the Anjuman verdict inoperative, the Court held that the welfare of students takes precedence:

“The RTE Act is a child centric legislation and must be read so. Service of teachers cannot come at the cost of educational future of the children.”

The Court pointed out that nearly 15 years have passed since the RTE Act was enforced, which is “more than sufficient time for a teacher to acquire the TET qualification.”

The Decision and Final Relief

The Supreme Court found “no error in the order under review, much less palpable error apparent on the face of the record, as warranting review.”

However, acknowledging the need for the law to be pragmatic, the Court cited State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO (2005) 3 SCC 752, which preferred substantial justice over a technical approach. To prevent extreme disruptions in schools and the potential loss of employment of a vast number of teachers in a truncated timeframe, the Court decided to provide limited, modified relief.

The Revised Directives:

1. Extension of Timeline: Under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court altered and extended the timeline granted in paragraph 217 of the Anjuman judgment from 2 years to 3 years.
2. New Deadline: In-service teachers must now acquire the TET qualification by August 31, 2028 (instead of the previous deadline of August 31, 2027).
3. No Further Extensions: The Court made it “abundantly clear that no further prayer for extension of time shall be entertained.”
4. Conduct of TET Exams: The Court directed State Governments and competent authorities to conduct the TET periodically, “preferably twice every year, interspersed with an approximate period of six months,” to ensure teachers have reasonable opportunities to comply.

With these modifications, all the review petitions were officially dismissed.

Case Details

• Case Title: State of U.P. v. Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust & Ors. (with connected matters)
• Case Number: Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 53434/2025 in Civil Appeal No. 1385/2025
• Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
• Date of Judgment: May 29, 2026