The court said: “We sympathise with the teachers who figure as review petitioners, in as much, they could face difficulties highlighted by them. However, a perceived sense of insecurity is not a sufficient reason for this court to take a re-look at the matter again.”THE Supreme Court on Friday dismissed petitions seeking review of its 2025 ruling, which made Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) mandatory for even those teachers who joined service prior to the enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, but extended the time for this till August 31, 2028.A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan said “service of teachers cannot come at the cost of the educational future of children” and reiterated that TET is not only a mandatory eligibility requirement but also a constitutional necessity flowing from the right to quality education under Article 21A.The SC in its September 1, 2025 order in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust vs State of Maharashtra held that the RTE Act “ought to apply to all minority institutions, whether aided or unaided”. It also held that in-service teachers…recruited prior to enactment of the Act, and having more than five years to retire on superannuation, should qualify TET within 2 years, i.e. by August 31, 2027, failing which they would not be entitled to continue in service. The court also held that irrespective of the length of service remaining, any teacher aspiring for promotion would necessarily be required to qualify the TET.About 70 petitions were filed following this by various states, teachers’ associations/ organisations and individual teachers seeking a review of the part regarding TET.It was contended that making TET qualification mandatory for in-service teachers, and giving 2 years for compliance could potentially lead to a large number of teachers being rendered ineligible to continue in service and also have serious ramifications on the edifice of public education, particularly the interests of school-going children who may suffer disruption in the continuity and quality of education.Rejecting this, the court said: “Today, we stand nearly a decade away from the window granted by the 2017 (RTE) Amendment Act and in excess of a decade-and-a-half since the RTE Act was enforced. The period of 15 years could be considered more than sufficient time for a teacher to acquire the TET qualification. In Anjuman, we noted the practical realities and granted a further time of two years to the teachers in service to acquire the TET qualification, exercising our power under Article 142 of the Constitution. This too, according to the review petitioners, is not sufficient.”“To make the verdict in Anjuman inoperative, based on the contention that several thousands of teachers would be rendered out of service, as a consequence thereof would mean that teachers who do not possess the TET qualification would continue in service, impacting the educational future of generations to come. 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.”Story continues below this adThe review petitioners contended that the provisions of the RTE Act, which came into force from 1st April, 2010, together with the amendment introduced by the Amendment Act of 2017, cannot be applied retrospectively to teachers who had been appointed prior to the said date. They argued that insistence upon qualification of the TET for in-service teachers is “arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustified”, inasmuch as such teachers had been appointed in accordance with the prevailing service rules and regulations and, at a point of time, when qualifying the TET was not prescribed as an essential condition.They pointed out that the August 23, 2010 notification issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) exempted teachers appointed for Classes I to VIII prior to the date of the notification from the requirement of possessing TET qualification.The SC said: “Even if certain exemptions are traceable in the subordinate legislation, including any notification, governing the stipulation of minimum qualifications, such subordinate legislation cannot override the parent statute.”It pointed out that the use of the word “teacher” and not “person” in the first proviso (of the Act) 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.Story continues below this adIt added that the “second proviso, inserted by the 2017 Amendment Act with retrospective effect from 1st April 2015…only fortifies” this “legislative scheme”.The bench said “the statutory framework in itself is plain: it neither invalidates past appointments retrospectively nor visits existing teachers with immediate disqualification. On the contrary, both the original enactment and its amendment are premised upon legislative recognition of existing appointments while simultaneously stipulating a time-bound mechanism for securing minimum qualifications in the larger interest of maintaining standards in elementary education”.The court said: “We sympathise with the teachers who figure as review petitioners, in as much, they could face difficulties highlighted by them. However, a perceived sense of insecurity is not a sufficient reason for this court to take a re-look at the matter again.” Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More Tags:supreme courtTeacher Eligibility Test