SC extends deadline for in-service teachers to clear TET till 2028

The Supreme Court ruled that clearing the Teacher Eligibility Test remains mandatory for in-service teachers and extended the deadline to August 31, 2028. The court said educational standards and children’s future cannot be compromised, while directing authorities to conduct TET exams regularly

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday reiterated that clearing the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is mandatory for in-service teachers and extended the time till August 31, 2028 for passing the exam to remain in service.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan dismissed a batch of more than 65 review petitions filed by several state governments, teachers’ associations and individual teachers challenging the court’s earlier ruling in the Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust case.

---

The petitioners had sought reconsideration of the court’s 2025 judgment which held that in-service teachers appointed before the enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, and having more than five years left before retirement, must clear the TET within two years from September 1, 2025.

In an order, the court said, “TET examination must be conducted by the relevant authorities expeditiously as well as the time and resources required for the same are limited, we alter and extend the timeline from 2 to 3 years, the qualification has to be obtained by 31st August, 2028 instead of 31st August, 2027, as originally directed”. The court, however, made it clear that no further extension of time would be granted.

Rejecting the argument that the TET requirement amounted to retrospective application of the law, the bench said the statutory framework of the RTE Act clearly envisaged that even in-service teachers were required to acquire minimum qualifications within a prescribed timeframe.

The judgment noted that the RTE Act specifically dealt with teachers already in service at the commencement of the law and granted them time to obtain the prescribed qualifications.

“The legislature intended the in-service teachers to also meet the prescribed minimum threshold,” the court said. The bench further held that exemptions contained in subordinate legislation or notifications issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) could not override the parent statute.

“To make the verdict inoperative based on the contention that several thousands of teachers would be rendered out of service as a consequence thereof would mean that teachers who do not possess the TET qualification would continue in service, impacting the educational future of generations to come,” the court said.

The petitioners had contended that teachers appointed before the RTE Act and the 2011 amendment to the NCTE Act could not be compelled to qualify TET midway through their careers, arguing that it amounted to an unfair change in service conditions.

The court rejected the submission, saying the requirement of TET was linked to maintaining standards in elementary education and flowed from the constitutional mandate guaranteeing quality education to children.

“The RTE Act is a child-centric legislation and must be read so. Service of teachers cannot come at the cost of educational future of the children,” it said.

The states had also argued that enforcing the TET condition within a short period could result in a large number of teachers losing their jobs, adversely affecting public education and continuity of teaching in schools. Acknowledging the practical difficulties, the court said continuity in elementary education and the welfare of children required a pragmatic approach.

“At the same time, service of teachers cannot come at the cost of the educational future of the children,” the bench said. The court directed states and competent authorities to conduct TET examinations periodically, preferably twice every year with an interval of around six months, to give eligible teachers reasonable opportunities to qualify. With the modification extending the deadline, all the review petitions were dismissed.