New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a batch of over 65 review petitions challenging its earlier landmark judgment in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra, which had held that qualifying the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is a mandatory condition for in-service teachers to continue in employment.
While refusing to review the core ruling, the Court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to extend the deadline for acquiring the TET qualification from 31 August 2027 to 31 August 2028, making it abundantly clear that no further extension shall be granted.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan, in its judgment dated 29 May 2026, delivered the verdict in a large number of connected review petitions filed by various States, teachers’ associations, and individual teachers.
Earlier, the Court held that qualification in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is a mandatory eligibility requirement not only for appointment but also for the continued service of in-service teachers. The Court further held that the requirement applies with greater force to promotions, making TET qualification an indispensable condition for advancement in service.
Exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court granted teachers having more than five years of remaining service a period of two years, from 1 September 2025 to 31 August 2027, to qualify the TET. It clarified that failure to do so within the stipulated period would disentitle such teachers from continuing in service. The Court also made it clear that any teacher seeking promotion must necessarily qualify the TET, irrespective of the length of service remaining.
The review petitioners advanced five principal objections. First, that the RTE Act and the 2017 Amendment Act cannot be applied retrospectively to teachers appointed prior to 1 April 2010. Second, that the first proviso to Section 12A of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (NCTE Act) protected teachers recruited before the NCTE Amendment Act, 2011 from removal on the ground of non-fulfilment of qualifications. Third, that mandating TET for in-service teachers was arbitrary and amounted to an impermissible change of service conditions midway through their careers. Fourth, that a notification dated 23 August 2010 issued by the NCTE expressly exempted teachers appointed for Classes I to VIII prior to its issuance from the minimum qualifications, including TET. Fifth, and without prejudice to the other contentions, many petitioners sought an extension of the two-year compliance period on the ground that it was too short.
Addressing the contention that the requirement operated retrospectively, the Court undertook a detailed examination of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. It noted that while Section 23(1), which governs future appointments, employs the expression “any person”, the first proviso to Section 23(2) uses the term “a teacher”, thereby specifically referring to persons already in service on the commencement of the Act.
The Court held that this distinction in phraseology was neither accidental nor inconsequential, and demonstrated that from the very inception of the RTE Act in 2009, the legislature intended for in-service teachers to also be required to meet the prescribed minimum threshold within a stipulated time. The second proviso, inserted by the 2017 Amendment Act with retrospective effect from 1 April 2015, was also found not to introduce retrospectivity but rather to provide a further compliance window for teachers who had not been able to acquire the qualification within the first five-year period.
On the contention based on the NCTE Act, the Court noted that counsel for the petitioners, while placing heavy reliance on the first proviso to Section 12A, had entirely overlooked the second proviso, which expressly reinforces the requirement under the RTE Act that minimum qualifications be acquired within the period specified therein. The submission was thus rejected.
On the contention of change of service conditions, the Court noted that neither the first nor the second proviso to Section 23(2) of the RTE Act had ever been directly challenged in any legal proceeding, either before or after the Anjuman judgment. While expressing sympathy for the difficulties faced by teachers, the Court held that a perceived sense of insecurity was not sufficient reason for re-examining the matter.
It reiterated its observations from Anjuman (supra) that “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 that “the operation of a statute can never be seen as an evil.” The Court further held that the TET requirement could not be treated as a new condition of service, given the legislative scheme that extended compliance windows for teachers rather than immediately disqualifying them.
Several States urged that making TET mandatory, combined with a short compliance period, could render thousands of teachers ineligible, thereby disrupting the functioning of public schools and harming children’s education. The Court rejected this argument with a firm reminder that the RTE Act is a child-centric legislation and must be read as such. It observed that more than fifteen years had elapsed since the RTE Act was enforced in April 2010, a period considered more than sufficient for any teacher to acquire the TET qualification. The Court stated, “Service of some teachers cannot come at the cost of the educational future of the children.” Allowing unqualified teachers to continue indefinitely, the Court held, would impact the educational future of generations to come.
Finding no palpable error apparent on the face of the record in the order under review, the Court dismissed the review petitions on merits. It recalled the limited scope of review jurisdiction as articulated in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. State (UT of Delhi), (1980) 2 SCC 167, and reiterated the principles governing review petitions laid down in Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. A.S. Raghavendra, (2024) 6 SCC 418, holding that a review petition cannot be an appeal in disguise and that a re-agitation of issues already decided is not permissible.
However, recognising the paramountcy of ensuring continuity in the elementary education of children and taking a pragmatic approach, as referred to in State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO, (2005) 3 SCC 752, the Court granted limited relief.
In exercise of its power under Article 142, it extended the deadline for in-service teachers to acquire the TET qualification from two years to three years, i.e., from 31 August 2027 to 31 August 2028. The Court also directed that the relevant State authorities conduct TET examinations periodically, preferably twice every year, with an interval of approximately six months between successive examinations, so as to afford teachers a reasonable opportunity to comply.
The Court made it emphatically clear that no further prayer for extension of time shall be entertained.
With this modification, all the review petitions stand dismissed.
Case Title: State of U.P. v. Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust & Ors., Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 53434/2025 in Civil Appeal No. 1385/2025
