Supreme Court makes TET mandatory for teacher appointments and promotion

Court Clarifies TET as Essential Requirement

The Supreme Court on TET mandatory has made it clear that qualifying the Teachers’ Eligibility Test (TET) is now compulsory for all new teacher appointments as well as for serving teachers seeking promotions. The Court emphasized that TET ensures a minimum quality benchmark for teaching at the elementary level, from Classes 1 to 8, across the country.

Grace Period for In-Service Teachers

The Court further ruled that teachers appointed before the enforcement of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), and who still have more than five years of service left, will be given a two-year grace period to pass TET. Those who fail to qualify within this time will face voluntary or compulsory retirement but will receive terminal benefits. By making Supreme Court on TET mandatory, the Bench stressed the importance of teacher quality in strengthening the education system.

Minority Schools and Pending Clarification

For now, minority-run schools have been kept outside the scope of this directive. The Court has referred the issue of whether the RTE Act applies to such institutions to a larger Bench for further consideration. This clarification highlights that while Supreme Court on TET mandatory applies broadly, some categories may remain exempt until further judicial review.

State and Teachers’ Response

Reacting to the ruling, Odisha’s School and Mass Education Minister Nityananda Gond said the state would carefully examine the order before taking decisions. He acknowledged that many teachers in Odisha had been recruited before 2011, when TET was not mandatory, and therefore the government might consider conducting special TET exams for in-service teachers.

However, teachers’ associations in Odisha expressed concern, urging that the Supreme Court on TET mandatory requirement should apply only to new recruits, not those who have already served for years. They argued that imposing the rule retrospectively could cause hardship for thousands of teachers.