The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment dated 8 September 2025, held that all teachers must qualify the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) as a prerequisite for both appointment and promotion in schools. A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan ruled that there exists "no right of consideration" for teaching positions without the requisite TET qualification, while carving out a significant exception for minority educational institutions protected under Article 30 of the Constitution.
Background
The matter arose from a challenge by the Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust against the State of Maharashtra's insistence on TET qualification for teachers in minority-run schools. The Right to Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), enacted pursuant to Article 21A of the Constitution, prescribes minimum qualifications for teachers in elementary schools, including clearing the TET conducted by the appropriate government or an authorised body.
The central tension in the case was between the State's regulatory power to ensure quality education through standardised teacher qualifications and the constitutional protection afforded to minority educational institutions under Article 30, which guarantees religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
Key Holdings
The Supreme Court established the following principles:
TET qualification mandatory: Teachers seeking appointment or promotion in schools must possess a valid TET qualification. The Court affirmed that no candidate has a right to be considered for a teaching position without clearing the prescribed eligibility test under the RTE Act.
Quality of education paramount: The Bench emphasised that the TET requirement serves the constitutional objective under Article 21A of ensuring quality education for children, and such minimum qualification standards are a reasonable regulatory measure.
Minority institution exemption: The Court held that the TET mandate does not apply to minority educational institutions protected under Article 30. Extending the requirement to such institutions would impermissibly interfere with their right to administer their institutions, including decisions on teacher recruitment criteria.
Exercise of Article 142 powers: The Court invoked Article 142 to provide complete justice by delineating clear boundaries between State regulatory authority over education standards and the constitutionally protected autonomy of minority institutions.
Implications for Practitioners
This ruling provides much-needed clarity on the intersection of teacher qualification standards and minority institution autonomy. Education law practitioners advising minority-run schools can now confirm that TET compliance is not mandatory for their institutions, though such schools may voluntarily adopt the standard.
For state education departments, the judgment reinforces their authority to enforce TET requirements across all non-minority schools without exception. Teachers currently serving without TET qualification in non-minority schools face heightened vulnerability, as the ruling forecloses any argument that experience or alternative qualifications can substitute for TET clearance.
The practical distinction between minority and non-minority institutions on teacher eligibility may prompt further litigation on whether the exemption extends to other RTE Act requirements, particularly concerning pupil-teacher ratios and infrastructure norms.