Evan V

The Supreme Court of India on Monday directed the Union Government to place an affidavit on record clarifying whether a “special educator” must qualify the Teachers’ Eligibility Test (TET) to be appointed for teaching at the secondary stage (Classes 9 to 12).

A Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and  Justice K Vinod Chandran passed the direction after hearing Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, Amicus Curiae Rishi Malhotra and Senior Counsel Ramkrishna Viraraghavan and Manish Singhvi.

The Court asked the Union to clarify, inter alia: (i) whether TET qualification is insisted upon for special educators seeking appointment for Classes 9–12; (ii) whether the “note” in the recruitment process referenced in the Union’s 10 June 2022 communication applies across all schooling stages; and (iii) whether any TET examinations have, in fact, been conducted for the secondary stage since 2010.

Also Read: Supreme Court Unsatisfied With FSSAI Compliance Affidavit, Directs Consideration Of Front-Of-Pack Warnings On Sugar, Salt, Saturated Fats In Food

On a specific query, the ASG submitted that TET is mandatory for all teachers, including at the secondary level, and that special educators additionally require certification from the Rehabilitation Council of India.

Justice Datta referred to a prior Supreme Court order (noted during the hearing) that extracted “Guidelines for Appointment of Special Educators” (under the Samagra Shiksha framework), which expressly referred to TET for Classes 1–5 and 6–8, but did not specifically mention Classes 9–12. The Judge remarked: "If that be so, how can you now say that it is necessary for 9, 10 also? Where do we get that? When there is specific mention of 1-5 and 6-8, that necessarily means 9 and 10 are excluded".

In response, the Union relied on the Ministry of Education’s communication dated 10 June 2022, which, under the heading “recruitment process”, refers to the CTET/TET/NTA score, plus a demonstration of “Class” (classroom teaching) as part of the recruitment modality.

However, Justice Datta questioned the method by which such eligibility requirements were sought to be introduced, stating: "Not in this fashion. Not by a communication. Either you include it in the statute or by rule-making power you do it...one officer will come and give his own opinion, what is the [...] of this? Does it not run contrary to what the guidelines are, which are extracted in the judgment of Justice Khanwilkar?"

Also Read: Section 346(2) BNSS: Remand Beyond 15 Days Of Accused Already In Custody Not Per Se Illegal; Habeas Corpus Won’t Lie Unless Remand Order Patently Illegal Or Without Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court

The ASG sought time to take instructions on the interplay between the earlier guidelines and the 10 June 2022 communication.

On the service-conditions issue, senior counsel submitted that States/UTs had not complied with the Court’s earlier directions regarding pay parity and service conditions of contractual special educators. The Bench directed: "we require each of the state governments to file affidavits and plead compliance of the aforesaid directions contained in the order dated 21 July 2022 within a month".

The Court also noted that the July 2022 directions had been reiterated in a subsequent order (including in March 2025).

Case Title: Rajneesh Kumar Pandey and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 132/2016.

Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and  Justice K Vinod Chandran