The Supreme Court has dismissed a batch of review petitions challenging its earlier judgment that made the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) a mandatory qualification for in-service teachers. However, balancing statutory compliance with practical realities, the Court has granted an additional year to acquire the qualification, extending the deadline from 31 August 2027 to 31 August 2028.
The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan decided numerous review petitions filed by States, teachers’ associations and individual teachers against the Court’s earlier decision in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra.
Table of Contents
Core Issue Before the Supreme Court
The review petitioners challenged the Supreme Court’s earlier interpretation of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), under which the Court had held that in-service teachers who were appointed before the enactment of the RTE Act must also qualify the Teacher Eligibility Test for continuation in service and for promotion.
In the original judgment, the Court had directed that teachers with more than five years of service remaining must qualify TET within two years from 1 September 2025, failing which they would not be entitled to continue in service. The Court had further clarified that any teacher seeking promotion must necessarily possess the TET qualification.
Review Jurisdiction Is Extremely Limited
At the outset, the Supreme Court reiterated the settled principles governing review jurisdiction. Referring to earlier precedents including Northern India Caterers and Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. A.S. Raghavendra, the Court emphasized that a review petition cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise and can succeed only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
The Bench observed that merely because another interpretation is possible does not justify reopening a final judgment.
Teachers’ Main Arguments
The petitioners raised several objections to the earlier ruling:
- The RTE Act and the 2017 amendment could not be applied retrospectively to teachers appointed before the law came into force.
- Teachers had been recruited according to the rules prevailing at the time of appointment and could not subsequently be subjected to new eligibility requirements.
- Certain State governments had exempted teachers from TET requirements.
- NCTE notifications allegedly exempted teachers appointed before 23 August 2010 from acquiring TET qualifications.
- The two-year period granted by the Supreme Court for acquiring TET was too short.
Supreme Court Rejects Retrospective Application Argument
The Court rejected the contention that its earlier interpretation gave retrospective effect to the RTE Act.
Examining Section 23 of the RTE Act, the Bench noted that while subsection (1) uses the expression “any person” for future appointments, the provisos to subsection (2) specifically refer to “a teacher” and “every teacher”, thereby clearly covering existing teachers who were already in service when the Act came into force.
According to the Court, Parliament intentionally used different expressions to distinguish between future recruits and teachers already serving in schools.
The judgment observed that the first proviso expressly granted existing teachers five years to acquire the prescribed qualifications, demonstrating a legislative intention that in-service teachers must also meet the minimum standards.
The Court further held that the 2017 amendment merely extended the compliance window for teachers and did not introduce any retrospective disqualification.
NCTE Act Does Not Override RTE Requirements
The review petitioners had also relied upon Section 12A of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, arguing that teachers recruited before the 2011 amendment could not be removed for lack of prescribed qualifications.
Rejecting this submission, the Supreme Court pointed out that while the first proviso protected existing teachers from immediate removal, the second proviso expressly required such teachers to acquire the prescribed qualifications within the period specified under the NCTE Act or the RTE Act.
The Bench observed that the petitioners had focused only on the protective portion of the provision while overlooking the statutory obligation imposed by the second proviso.
TET Is Not a New Service Condition, Says Court
Another major challenge was that requiring TET qualification midway through a teacher’s career amounted to changing service conditions after appointment.
The Supreme Court disagreed.
The Court held that Section 23 of the RTE Act does not impose a new service condition but merely enforces a statutory requirement that has existed since the enactment of the RTE Act and was subsequently reinforced through legislative amendments.
Significantly, the Bench reiterated its earlier observation that TET is not merely a recruitment formality but a constitutional necessity flowing from the right to quality education guaranteed under Article 21A of the Constitution.
Child-Centric Nature of RTE Act Prevails
Several State governments argued that strict enforcement of the TET requirement could result in large-scale displacement of teachers and adversely affect school education.
While acknowledging these concerns, the Supreme Court emphasized that the RTE Act is fundamentally a child-centric legislation and must be interpreted from the perspective of children’s educational rights.
The Court observed that permitting unqualified teachers to continue indefinitely would undermine educational standards and negatively affect future generations of students.
The Bench also noted that nearly fifteen years had elapsed since the implementation of the RTE Act and almost a decade had passed since the 2017 amendment, giving teachers ample opportunity to acquire the required qualification.
No Error Found in Original Judgment
After examining all contentions, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of its earlier judgment.
The Court held that the review petitions effectively sought a rehearing on issues that had already been decided and therefore failed to satisfy the legal standards applicable to review jurisdiction.
Supreme Court Grants One-Year Extension Under Article 142
Despite refusing to review its substantive findings, the Court recognized the practical difficulties highlighted by teachers and State governments.
Invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Bench extended the deadline for acquiring TET qualification from two years to three years. Accordingly, eligible in-service teachers must now obtain the qualification by 31 August 2028, instead of the earlier deadline of 31 August 2027.
The Court further directed States and competent authorities to conduct TET examinations periodically and preferably twice a year, with approximately six months between successive examinations, so that teachers receive adequate opportunities to qualify.
No Further Extension Will Be Granted
The Supreme Court made it unequivocally clear that no future requests for extension of time would be entertained. Teachers who remain unqualified after the revised deadline cannot seek additional relaxation from the Court.
Case Details
Case Title: State Of U.P. Versus Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust & Ors.
Citation: JURISHOUR-1482-SC-2026
Case No.: Review Petition (Civil) Diary No.53434/2025
Date: 29/05/2026
