Supreme Court: While considering this appeal raising questions as regards to applicability of the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to minority educational institutions and whether qualifying in the TET is mandatory prerequisite for recruitment of teachers as well as promotion of teachers already in service, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta* and Manmohan, JJ., held that teachers aspiring for appointment and those in-service teachers aspiring for appointment by promotion, must qualify the TET, “Or else, they would have no right of consideration of their candidature”.
The Court clarified that there are in-service teachers who were recruited much prior to the advent of the RTE Act and who might have put in more than two or even three decades of service. To dislodge such teachers from service on the ground that they have not qualified the TET would seem to be a bit harsh. Therefore, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court directed that those teachers who have less than five years’ service left, as on date, may continue in service till they attain the age of superannuation without qualifying the TET. However, if any such teacher (having less than five years’ service left) aspires for promotion, they will not be considered eligible without he/she having qualified the TET.
Background:
The present appeals were filed by the following:
-
Minority educational institutions who are aggrieved because they are not being allowed to recruit teachers who have not qualified in the TET.
-
Authorities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution claiming that qualifying the TET is a mandatory requirement for appointment of teachers not only in non-minority but also minority institutions, whether aided or unaided.
-
Individual teachers, who were appointed prior to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) being enforced, claiming that the TET qualification cannot be made a mandatory requirement for the purposes of their promotion.
The afore-stated parties, through several rounds of litigations before various High Courts and Supreme Court, sought resolution of the following Questions:
-
Whether the State can insist that a teacher seeking appointment in a minority educational institution must qualify the TET? If so, whether providing such a qualification would affect any of the rights of the minority institutions guaranteed under the Constitution?
-
Whether teachers appointed much prior to issuance of Notification No.61-1/2011/NCTE (N&S) dated 29-7-2011 by the National Council for Teacher Education under Section 23(1) of the RTE Act read with the newly inserted proviso (second proviso) in Section 23(2) and having years of teaching experience (for e.g. 25 to 30 years) are required to qualify in the TET for being considered eligible for promotion?
In the petitions filed before Bombay High Court, the High Court had held that TET was mandatory for minority institutions; granted interim relief to teachers (teaching in minority institution) by staying the directions which mandated TET as a qualification.
Madras High Court had held that TET was held to be mandatory for teachers teaching in non-minority institutions. As regards minority institutions, TET was held inapplicable, and that it does not bind minority institutions.
The NCTE vide Notification F. No. 61- 03/20/2010/NCTE/(N&S) dated 23-8-2010 laid down minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in classes I to VIII in a school referred to in Section 2(n) of the RTE Act. This is when the TET was made mandatory for the first time. By three subsequent notifications, NCTE made amendments in this notification. Inter alia, certain changes were made in clause 1 (which laid down minimum qualifications for appointment) regarding the educational requirement. The mandatory requirement of TET remained unchanged.
In 2017, the Parliament made an amendment in Section 23 of RTE Act by introducing a proviso in Section 23(2) and provided an opportunity to teachers appointed/in service, prior to 31-3-2015 and who had not attained the minimum qualifications as prescribed (including the TET) to acquire the said qualifications within a period of four years from the date of commencement of the Amendment Act which was 1-4-2017.
On 3-8-2017, the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, issued a letter to the State secretaries, reminding that the last date to acquire minimum qualifications is 1-4-2019, and no teacher, who did not possess minimum qualifications under the RTE Act, would be permitted to continue in service beyond the given date.
Court’s Assessment:
Perusing the matter, the Court further added another issue that whether the decision of the Constitution Bench of 5 Judges in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 1, insofar as it exempts minority schools (whether aided or unaided) falling under Article 30(1) of the Constitution from the applicability of the RTE Act, warrants reconsideration.
The Court delved into the history regarding evolution of right to education as a fundamental right under the Constitution via Article 21A. The Court further noted that if a conflict were ever to arise between the two competing fundamental rights, i.e., Article 21A and Article 30, it must be remembered that not all rights stand on equal footing when their purposes diverge and reconciliation is no longer possible. In such a scenario, Article 30, though crucial in preserving cultural and educational autonomy, must be interpreted in tandem with Article 21A.
Delving into the relevant provisions of RTE Act, the Court stated that Section 12, “is the heart and soul of the RTE Act”. The mandate of Section 12(1)(c) is that schools shall reserve 25% of their seats in Class I for children belonging to the “weaker sections and disadvantaged groups from the neighbourhood”. This provision is the closest India has come to realizing the vision of an inclusive and rights-based universal elementary education. It reflects the idea of a common school system where children from diverse socio-economic backgrounds learn together under the same roof. It aims to build shared spaces where children from all backgrounds learn and grow together. Privileged students gain exposure to diverse life experiences, while those from weaker sections gain confidence and opportunity. “For this to succeed, pedagogy must evolve—teachers must be trained to value every child as a contributor to the learning process. Only then can the classroom become a true site of equality and transformation”. However, following the enactment of the RTE Act, minority educational institutions raised concerns that enforcement of Section 12(1)(c) would disrupt their autonomy or institutional character and erode their constitutionally protected rights under Article 30(1).
The Court noted that the exemption granted to minority institutions has since become the cornerstone of constitutional debates around the balance between the right to elementary education and minority rights. The Court grimly noted that exclusion of the RTE Act has created a fertile ground for misuse. Since the Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005, there has been a sharp rise in schools applying for minority status. The NCPCR Study found that around 85% of minority institutions received their minority status post-2006, i.e., many after the passage of the RTE Act.
Henceforth, the Court observed that the decision in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (supra) might have, unknowingly, jeopardized the very foundation of universal elementary education. “Exemption of minority institutions from the RTE Act leads to fragmentation of the common schooling vision and weakening of the idea of inclusivity and universality envisioned by Article 21A”. The Court observed that minority status seems to have become a vehicle for circumventing the mandate of the RTE Act.
Delving into Article 30(1) of the Constitution, the Court pointed out that the provision guarantees minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. However, this right is not absolute, nor does it imply blanket immunity from all regulatory frameworks. While the autonomy of minority institutions must be protected, it is not beyond the reach of reasonable regulation in the interest of maintaining educational standards and achieving constitutional goals. The Court further pointed out that Minority institutions, while retaining their autonomy in matters essential to their cultural and linguistic identity, do not operate in a vacuum. Once they enter the realm of formal schooling and benefit from recognition, affiliation, or aid from the State, they partake in the broader constitutional project of building an inclusive and educated society.
Therefore, the Division Bench in the present appeal, expressed its doubt stating that ruling in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (supra) strikes at the heart of good quality universal elementary education and its consequences are far-reaching.
Coming onto the teacher’s role in imparting quality education, the Court stated that compromising the quality of a teacher would necessarily compromise quality of education and is a direct threat to the right of children to quality education which is a necessary concomitant of the right guaranteed by Article 21A. This, in turn, would render the entire object and purpose of the RTE Act meaningless. In the sphere of primary education, a qualified teacher, at the very least, would be an assurance of quality education. Quality of education is, therefore, inherent in the right to education under Article 21A.
On the issue of applicability of the TET to in-service teachers appointed prior to 2009 and requirement of TET qualification for promotion of Teachers, the Court pointed out that TET is a statutory requirement introduced under the RTE Act and the corresponding NCTE notifications. It is aimed at ensuring minimum professional standards in the recruitment of elementary school teachers, in line with the mandate under Section 23 of the RTE Act. The TET is not a mere procedural requirement but forms an essential part of the minimum qualification criteria.
The first and second provisos to Section 23(2) of the RTE Act carved out a transitional obligation for in-service teachers who did not possess the minimum qualifications at the time of commencement of the RTE Act. They were required to acquire such qualifications including passing the TET within a prescribed time frame. The second proviso introduced by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2017 extended this compliance period by a period of four years from the date of commencement of the 2017 Amendment Act, which was deemed to have come into force on 1-4-2015, i.e., till 2019 and not 2021 if four years were calculated from the date of the notification (i.e., 9-8-2017). The express legislative intent was to bring all in-service teachers within the ambit of uniform quality standards.
Furthermore, NCTE’s notification also reinforces this requirement by stating that teachers working in unaided private schools, or those already in position as of 31-3-2015, must qualify the TET within the stipulated period. Thus, read holistically, Section 23 of the RTE Act and the NCTE notifications together establish the TET as a compulsory qualifying criterion for all teachers appointed on or after 23-8-2010, and as a time-bound compliance obligation for those appointed earlier without the requisite qualifications. The sole object is to ensure uniform teaching standards across institutions imparting elementary education. Viewed in this light, the TET is not only a mandatory eligibility requirement, but it is a constitutional necessity flowing from the right to quality education under Article 21A.
The Court once again had serious doubts as to whether Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (supra) was justified in granting a blanket exemption to minority institutions falling under Article 30(1) from the applicability of the RTE Act. The Court opined that the RTE Act ought to apply to all minority institutions, whether aided or unaided. On the contrary, applying the RTE Act aligns with the purposive interpretation of Article 30(1), which was never meant to shield institutions from reasonable regulation in pursuit of constitutional goals. There is no inherent conflict between Article 21A and Article 30(1); both can and must co-exist mutually.
Section 12(1)(c) RTE Act does not alter school demographics in a way that would compromise the minority identity of minority schools. Moreover, Section 12(1)(c) is accompanied by a reimbursement mechanism, which ensures financial neutrality. Section 12(1)(c) does not mandate that 25% of children admitted under the quota must belong to a different religious or linguistic community. In fact, the requirement can be met by admitting children from the minority community itself, provided they fall within the definitions of “weaker section” or “disadvantaged group” as specified under the RTE Act.
Appointment and recruitment are two distinct but not unrelated concepts. Recruitment is the broader process of which selection is a part that culminates in an appointment. Recruitment can be carried out from various sources, which are broadly classified into internal and external sources.
The Court further stated that first proviso provides for a deadline for all teachers, who are in service, to acquire the prescribed minimum qualifications within a period of five years. Should they fail to do so, they render themselves ineligible to continue on their post. The objective behind introducing the proviso is to uphold the best interest of the children by ensuring quality education, not only through teachers who were to be appointed after the commencement of the RTE Act but also for in-service teachers.
Obtaining the TET qualification under the RTE Act is mandatory and the consequence of not obtaining such qualification flowing from the scheme of the RTE Act is that the in-service teachers would cease to have any right to continue in service.
Therefore, the Court held that the TET is indeed a qualification, necessary to be held by a person seeking appointment as a teacher in a school. Only upon a person obtaining such qualification can he become eligible for appointment as a teacher.
The Court further urged the Chief Justice of India to consider the desirability as to whether the issues formulated hereunder, or such other issues as may be deemed relevant, warrant reference to a larger Bench or not:
-
Whether the judgment in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (supra) exempting minority educational institutions, whether aided or unaided, falling under Article 30(1) from the purview of the entirety of the RTE Act does require reconsideration on account of reasons given by the Division Bench.
-
Whether the RTE Act infringes the rights of minorities, religious or linguistic, guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution? Assuming that Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act suffers from the vice of encroaching upon minority rights protected by Article 30 of the Constitution, whether Section 12(1)(c) should have been read down to include children of the particular minority community who also belong to weaker section and disadvantaged group in the neighbourhood, to save it from being declared ultra vires such minority rights?
-
What is the effect of non-consideration of Article 29(2) of the Constitution in the context of the declaration made in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (supra) that the RTE Act would not be applicable to aided minority educational institutions?
-
Whether, in the absence of any discussion in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (supra) regarding unconstitutionality of the other provisions of the RTE Act, except Section 12(1)(c), the entirety of the enactment should have been declared ultra vires minority rights protected by Article 30 of the Constitution?
Conclusion:
-
The Court thus held that provisions of the RTE Act have to be complied with by all schools as defined in Section 2(n) of the RTE Act except the schools established and administered by the minority — whether religious or linguistic — till such time the afore-stated reference is decided and subject to the answers to the questions formulated above. Furthermore, in-service teachers (irrespective of the length of their service) would also be required to qualify the TET to continue in service.
-
Insofar as in-service teachers recruited prior to enactment of the RTE Act and having more than 5 years to retire on superannuation are concerned, they shall be under an obligation to qualify the TET within 2 years from date in order to continue in service. If any of such teachers fail to qualify the TET within the time, then they shall have to quit service. They may be compulsorily retired; and paid whatever terminal benefits they are entitled to. Adding a rider that to qualify for the terminal benefits, such teachers must have put in the qualifying period of service, in accordance with the rules. If any teacher has not put in the qualifying service and there is some deficiency, his/her case may be considered by the appropriate department in the Government upon a representation being made by him/her.
[Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912, decided on 1-9-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Dipankar Datta
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Appellant(s): Mr. D. Kumanan, AOR Mr. Amol Chitale, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. Wilson, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. P. Parthiban, AOR Mr. Shankaran, Sr. Adv. Mr. Apoorv Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Lokesh Krishna, Adv. M/S. Shakil Ahmad Syed, AOR Mr. Ans Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR Ms. Nivedita Nair, Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR Mr. K.radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv. Mr. C. Kranthi Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Riddi Bose, Adv. Ms. Racheeta Chawla, Adv. Ms. Sampriti Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Ms. Rishi Agarwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. A. S. Rajnarayan, Adv. Ms. Neelam Singh, AOR Mr. Krishan Kant Kumar, Adv. Mr. R Venkataramani, Attorney General for India Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Ms. Satvika Thakur, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Ms. Ameya Vikrma Thanvi, Adv. Mr./Ms. Oorjaswi Goswani, Adv. Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Tushar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Ms. Manisha T Karia, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shalini Chandra, AOR Mr. Deepin Deepak Sahni, Adv. Ms. Ananya Arora, Adv. Ms. Shreya Gupta, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR Mr. Abdulrahiman Tamboli, Adv. Mr. Rahul Joshi, AOR Mrs. N. Kavitha Rameshwar, Adv. Mr. A. Rajarajan, Adv. Mrs. L. Vasuki Rajarajan, Adv. Mr. R. Ramachandran, Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. Mohd Parvez Dabas, Adv. Mr. Uzmi Jameel Husain, Adv. Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR Mr. Vinamra Kopariha, Adv. Mr. Yash S. Vijay, AOR Mr. K Parameshwar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, AOR Mr. T. Bhaskar Gowtham, Adv. Ms. Shuchi Singh, Adv. Mr. Vivek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Ms. Shivani Mishra, Adv. Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, Adv. Mr. Aditya Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar,, Adv. Mr. Ayush Anand, AOR Mr. Sai Shashank V,, Adv. Mr. Praneet Pranav, Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Gautam, Adv. Dr. G Babu, Adv. Mr. Mugundhan, Adv. Mr. Monu Kumar, Adv. Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR Mr. Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Bhoopesh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Jitesh Sharma, Adv. Ms. Saumya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bhushan Mishra, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jain, Adv. Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR Mr. Rakesh Mishra, AOR Ms. Deepika Kalia, Adv. Ms. Vasudha Singh, Adv. Ms. Vaishnavi, Adv. Ms. Madhumeet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Sudeep Chandra, Adv. Mr. Pratyaksh Semwal, Adv. Mr. Mohnish Nirwan, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Umesh Dubey, AOR Ms. N. Kavitha Rameshwar, Adv. Mr. A. Rajarajan, Adv. Ms. L. Vasuki Rajarajan, Adv. Mr. R. Ramchandran, Adv. Mr. Parth Sarathi, Adv. Mr. Gyanendra Vikram Singh, Adv. Ms. Soumya Gulati, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Mrs. Shantha Devi Raman, Adv. Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR Mr. Parth Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Arihant Jain, Adv. Ms. Tanisha Gopal, Adv. Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, AOR
Buy Constitution of India HERE
