The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the Teacher Eligibility Test is a constitutional necessity, not a procedural formality, flowing directly from the right to quality education guaranteed under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India. Holding that no exemption in

[30/05, 16:30] sekarreporter1: “The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the Teacher Eligibility Test is a constitutional necessity, not a procedural formality, flowing directly from the right to quality education guaranteed under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India. Holding that no exemption in subordinate legislation can override the unambiguous mandate of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the Court dismissed a batch of over sixty-five review petitions filed by States, teachers’ associations, and individual in-service teachers challenging its earlier direction making TET qualification mandatory for continuation in service.

Dismissing the review petitions on merits, the Court nonetheless exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to extend the compliance deadline for acquiring TET qualification by one year, to August 31, 2028, while making it categorically clear that no further extension shall be entertained.

Also Read – Conviction Can Be Based On Uncorroborated Approver Testimony If Court Finds It Safe To Rely Upon: Supreme Court
Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan observed, “Even if certain exemptions are traceable in the subordinate legislation, including any notification, governing the stipulation of minimum qualifications, such subordinate legislation cannot override the parent statute. The enquiry must, therefore, be anchored to the statute ”
https://www.verdictum.in/supreme-court/state-of-up-v-anjuman-ishaat-e-taleem-trust-2026-insc-597-tet-qualification-mandatory-for-all-in-service-teachers-1614983#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court,to%20the%20statute
[30/05, 16:30] Meta AI: *Case #36: _State of UP v Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust_ | 2026 INSC 597 | SC | 27.05.2026*
_Justice Dipankar Datta + Justice Manmohan_. *TET Mandatory + Art 21-A + S.23 RTE Act + Art 142*. *HJS Education Law, Law Officer – School Education, UPSC GS-2*

*1. Core Holding – One Line Law*
*TET is a “constitutional necessity” under Art 21-A, not a procedural formality. No exemption in rules/notifications can override S.23 RTE Act 2009. All in-service teachers must qualify TET.*

*2. Facts – Why 65+ Review Petitions?*
**Event** **Detail**
**Earlier SC Order** *Made TET mandatory for continuation in service for all teachers Classes I-VIII, even if appointed before 2010 RTE Act*
**Who Filed Reviews** *States: UP, Bihar, WB, TN. Teachers’ Assns. Individual in-service teachers appointed pre-2010*
**Ground in Review** *1. TET can’t apply retrospectively 2. State rules exempted us 3. NCTE guidelines allowed exemption for teachers with 5 yrs exp 4. Vested right to continue*
*3. SC Dismissal – Key Reasoning 27.05.2026*
**Issue** **SC Ruling** **Legal Basis**
**1. TET Nature** *“Constitutional necessity, not procedural formality” – flows from Art 21-A Right to Quality Education* *Art 21-A → quality education needs qualified teachers*
**2. S.23 RTE Override** *S.23 RTE Act mandates minimum qualifications set by NCTE. TET is NCTE norm. No exemption in subordinate legislation can override parent statute* *Hierarchy: Constitution > Statute > Rules. *State of MP v Gopal D. Tirthani 2003*
**3. Retrospective?** *Not retrospective. Continuation in service post-RTE requires compliance with new quality standards* *Service law: Qualifications can be upgraded – *State of Guj v Arvind Kumar 2012*
**4. State Rules/GOs** *Any notification granting exemption is ultra vires S.23 RTE* *Subordinate legislation can’t contradict Act*
**5. Right to Education** *Child’s Art 21-A > teacher’s right to job. Unqualified teachers violate child’s fundamental right* *Society for Unaided Schools 2012*
*Quote*: _“Even if certain exemptions are traceable in subordinate legislation… such subordinate legislation cannot override the parent statute. The enquiry must, therefore, be anchored to the statute.”_

*4. Relief Given – Art 142 Extension*
**Relief** **Condition**
**Deadline Extended** *From earlier deadline → **31.08.2028** to acquire TET*
**Final Warning** *“No further extension shall be entertained”*
**Consequence** *Teachers not TET qualified by 31.08.2028 → termination from service*
*Why Art 142?*: _To balance “child’s right” vs “livelihood of lakhs of teachers”. Equity + complete justice._

*5. Impact – Who Is Hit?*

1. *Pre-2010 Appointed Teachers*: _No TET at appointment time. Now must pass TET by 2028 or lose job._
2. *States with Exemption GOs*: _TN G.O. 181/2011, UP 2001 rules, Bihar 2012 – all exemptions void._
3. *Minority Schools*: _Even aided minority schools under Art 30 – TET applies. _Sk. Mohd. Rafique 2021_ followed._
4. *Shiksha Mitras/Para Teachers*: _Regularised without TET – now must qualify. ∼3.5 lakh teachers pan-India affected._

*6. TET vs Other Qualifications – SC Clarifies*
**Qualification** **TET Needed?** **Reason**
**B.Ed + appointed before 2010** *Yes* *S.23 RTE + NCTE 2010 makes TET mandatory for all*
**D.El.Ed only** *Yes* *TET is additional, not substitute*
**5+ yrs experience** *No exemption* *Experience ≠ eligibility. Quality standard uniform*
**Principal/HM** *Yes, if teaching* *If only admin, no. But if taking classes, TET must*
*7. For HJS/Law Officer Interview*

*Q1*: _“Teacher appointed 2005. State rule exempted TET. Can he continue?”_
*Model*: _No. 2026 INSC 597: TET constitutional necessity under Art 21-A. State rules ultra vires S.23 RTE. Must qualify by 31.08.2028 else termination. Art 142 relief only time, not exemption._

*Q2*: _“Minority aided school claims Art 30 – no TET. Valid?”_
*A*: _No. _Sk. Mohd. Rafique v State of WB 2021_ + _2026 INSC 597_: TET is regulatory, not interference with admin. Art 30 doesn’t grant right to appoint unqualified teachers. Child’s Art 21-A prevails._

*Q3*: _“As DEO, teacher fails TET in 2028. Action?”_
*A*: _1. Issue show cause. 2. Terminate w.e.f 01.09.2028 – SC deadline. 3. No pension if service <10 yrs. 4. Can’t claim equity – SC gave 2 yrs + said no further extension._ *8. Link to “2026 Accountability Docket”* **Case** **“No Exemption” Theme** **SC/HC Stand** **#31 Lecturers WA** *State tried to deny GPF via G.O. cutoff* *G.O. can’t override statute – service benefits* **#33 Rape by Cops** *Accused filed discharge to delay* *“Mere pendency not ground” – BNSS timeline* **#35 VIP Darshan** *Politicians claim VIP privilege* *“All equal before God” – Art 14* **#36 TET Mandatory** *States/teachers claim exemption via rules* *“Subordinate law can’t override RTE” – Art 21-A* *2026 Doctrine*: _“Statute > Rules. Constitution > Convenience. No VIP/exemption culture – Education, Temple, Court.”_

—

*Case #36 Added*: _State of UP v Anjuman – TET Constitutional Necessity + Deadline 31.08.2028 + No Exemption_

*Also Noted*: _“Conviction can be based on uncorroborated approver testimony if safe” – Separate SC ruling same day._

*Next*: Want *1. “TET Notification Timeline – NCTE 2010 to SC 2026 Chart”* OR *2. “Draft Termination Order for Non-TET Teacher Post-2028”* OR *3. “Art 21-A vs Teacher’s Art 311 – Balance Case Law”*?