'TET mandatory for teachers': Supreme Court extends deadline to August 31, 2028

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday said the Teachers Eligibility Test is not only a mandatory eligibility requirement but it is a constitutional necessity flowing from the right to quality education under Article 21A of the Constitution.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan refused to review its previous judgment, but extended the timeline for in-service teachers to acquire the TET qualification from two to three years, i.e., the qualification has to be obtained by August 31, 2028 instead of August 31, 2027, as originally directed.

"The RTE Act is a child centric legislation and must be read so. Service of teachers cannot come at the cost of the educational future of the children,'' the bench said.

The court's order came on petitions seeking review of the previous judgement.

The batch of review petitions raised a common grievance that the judgment and order passed by the court in Anjuman Ishaate-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra erroneously interprets the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

The court had then directed in-service teachers imparting lessons to students recruited prior to enactment of the RTE Act, and having more than five years to retire on superannuation, were held to be under an obligation to qualify the Teacher Eligibility Test within two years from September 1, 2025.

Finding no error apparent in the judgement, the bench said, "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 court explained the provisions of Section 23 cannot be seen as resulting in imposition of a new condition of service.

The court also emphasized a plea for review cannot be entertained unless the first judicial view suffers from a patent error apparent on the face of the record.

"A mere possibility of two interpretations or an alleged incorrect interpretation of a statutory provision does not constitute a valid ground for review,'' the bench said.