Supreme Court Extends TET Deadline for In-Service Teachers to August 2028, Dismisses Review Petitions

A Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan dismissed review petitions challenging mandatory TET for in-service teachers, but extended the compliance deadline by one year to 31 August 2028.

The Supreme Court on 29 May 2026 dismissed a batch of over 65 review petitions filed by various States, teachers’ associations, and individual teachers against its earlier judgment in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912), which had held that qualifying the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is a mandatory condition for in-service teachers to continue in service and to seek promotion. The Court found no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review. However, exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the bench extended the compliance window for in-service teachers from two years to three years — meaning the TET must now be acquired by 31 August 2028 instead of 31 August 2027. The Court also directed that no further extension shall be entertained.

How the Dispute Reached the Court

The original judgment in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust had, from paragraph 192 onwards, held that the requirement of qualifying the TET applies equally to in-service teachers as a mandatory eligibility condition for continuation in service and is mandatory for promotion. Invoking Article 142, the Court had granted a period of two years from 1 September 2025 to those teachers with more than five years of service remaining to qualify the TET, failing which they would not be entitled to continue in service. Teachers aspiring for promotion were required to qualify the TET irrespective of the length of service remaining.

This triggered a wave of review petitions. Petitioners — States including Uttar Pradesh, teachers’ associations, and individual teachers — did not challenge the entirety of the Anjuman ruling. Their grievance was confined to the direction imposing TET qualification on in-service teachers and the two-year compliance window they described as too short. The Court admitted the petitions for open court hearing in the interest of justice.

Five Contentions, All Rejected

The petitioners pressed five principal objections. First, that the RTE Act and the 2017 Amendment Act cannot be applied retrospectively to teachers appointed before 1 April 2010. Second, that the first proviso to Section 12A of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 protects teachers recruited before the NCTE Amendment Act, 2011 from removal solely on grounds of non-fulfilment of qualifications prescribed by the NCTE. Third, that insisting on TET for in-service teachers is arbitrary because those teachers were appointed under prevailing service rules when TET was not a condition, and that changing service conditions mid-career violates settled service jurisprudence. Fourth, that a notification dated 23 August 2010 issued by the NCTE expressly exempted teachers appointed for Classes I to VIII prior to that date from the minimum qualification requirement. Fifth, and without prejudice to the rest, that the two-year window granted in paragraph 217 of Anjuman is too short and should be extended.

The Court rejected all five.

The Court’s Reading of Section 23 of the RTE Act

On the retrospectivity argument, the Court returned to Section 23 of the RTE Act. Sub-section (1) uses the phrase “any person” and governs eligibility for future appointments prospectively. The first proviso to sub-section (2), however, uses the word “a teacher” — referring to those already in service at the commencement of the Act — and granted five years to acquire the prescribed qualifications. The Court held that this distinction in phraseology is neither accidental nor inconsequential: from the very inception of the RTE Act in 2009, Parliament intended in-service teachers to also meet the prescribed minimum threshold.

The second proviso, inserted by the 2017 Amendment Act with retrospective effect from 1 April 2015, extended the benefit of time to teachers appointed or in service as on 31 March 2015 who had not yet acquired the qualifications. The Court found that this amendment did not introduce retrospectivity; it recognised the existing status of such teachers and provided a further statutory window for compliance.

On the NCTE Act argument, the Court noted that while petitioners relied heavily on the first proviso to Section 12A of the NCTE Act, they overlooked the second proviso, which expressly reinforces the requirement under the RTE Act that minimum qualifications be acquired within the stipulated period.

On the NCTE notification of 23 August 2010, the Court held that even if exemptions are traceable in subordinate legislation, such subordinate legislation cannot override the parent statute. The enquiry must be anchored to the statute itself.

On the change-of-service-conditions argument, the Court observed that neither the first proviso nor the second proviso to Section 23(2) had been directly challenged in any original legal proceeding before or after Anjuman. It reiterated observations from Anjuman 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.” The provisions of Section 23, the Court held, cannot be seen as imposing a new condition of service.

The Review Jurisdiction Question

Before addressing the merits, the Court set out the narrow scope of review jurisdiction. It cited Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. State (UT of Delhi) (1980) 2 SCC 167 for the proposition that a review petition, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the moon. It also relied on Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. A.S. Raghavendra (2024) 6 SCC 418, which summarised the governing principles: an error justifying review must be apparent on the face of the record without any long-drawn process of reasoning; a review petition cannot be an appeal in disguise; and a change in law or a subsequent decision of a coordinate or larger bench is not by itself a ground for review.

Despite this, the Court permitted senior counsel to argue as if the issue were being decided afresh, also taking into account the petitioners’ grievance of breach of the audi alteram partem rule. After hearing the full arguments, the Court found no palpable error apparent on the face of the record.

The Pragmatic Concern: Displacement of Teachers and Children’s Education

Several States argued that making TET mandatory for in-service teachers within a two-year window could render a large number of teachers ineligible, disrupting public education and harming school-going children. The Court acknowledged the concern but declined to use it as a basis for diluting the TET requirement.

The Court noted that by the date of the order, nearly a decade had passed since the window granted by the 2017 Amendment Act, and over fifteen years since the RTE Act was enforced. It held that fifteen years could be considered more than sufficient time for a teacher to acquire the TET qualification. Making the Anjuman verdict inoperative on the ground that thousands of teachers would lose employment would mean that unqualified teachers continue in service, “impacting the educational future of generations to come.” The RTE Act, the Court said, is a child-centric legislation and must be read as such. Service of teachers cannot come at the cost of the educational future of children.

At the same time, the Court drew on State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO (2005) 3 SCC 752 for the principle that where substantial justice and a technical approach are pitted against each other, a pragmatic approach should be preferred. It found that the practical repercussions of displacing a substantial number of in-service teachers within a truncated time-frame — adversely affecting school functioning and children’s educational welfare — warranted limited relief, even though the review petitions themselves merited dismissal.

Order

The Court dismissed all review petitions. It found no error in the order under review warranting interference under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 114.

However, exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court extended the timeline for in-service teachers to acquire the TET qualification from two years to three years. The deadline is now 31 August 2028, replacing the earlier deadline of 31 August 2027 set in paragraph 217 of Anjuman.

The Court directed that the respective States and competent authorities shall conduct the TET periodically, and preferably twice every year with an interval of approximately six months between successive examinations, so as to afford eligible teachers a reasonable opportunity to comply.

The Court made it clear that no further prayer for extension of time shall be entertained.