Supreme Court Refers Applicability of RTE Act to Minority Institutions to Larger Bench | TET Qualification Held Mandatory for Teacher Recruitment and Promotions in Non-Minority Schools
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan held that the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) constitutes one of the “minimum qualifications” that may be prescribed under Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and directed that in-service teachers must qualify TET to continue in service, subject to limited transitional relief. The Court further directed that teachers with less than five years of service remaining may continue without TET until superannuation (without promotion eligibility), while those with more than five years must clear TET within two years to remain in service. Separately, the Bench doubted the correctness of Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust on the exemption of minority institutions from the RTE Act and referred framed questions to the Chief Justice of India for consideration by a larger bench.
These civil appeals were decided by the Supreme Court in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. The State of Maharashtra & Others (lead: Civil Appeal No. 1385 of 2025), with a neutral citation of 2025 INSC 1063. The judgment is reportable and delivered under the Court’s civil appellate jurisdiction. Multiple connected civil appeals were heard and reserved after some matters were withdrawn; the surviving appeals were adjudicated together.
The Court identified two broad issues for consideration. First, whether the State can insist that a teacher seeking appointment in a minority educational institution must qualify TET, and whether prescribing such a qualification affects rights of minority institutions under the Constitution. Second, whether teachers appointed prior to 29 July 2011 (under NCTE Notification No. 61-1/2011/NCTE (N & S)) and with significant experience must qualify TET to be eligible for promotion. These were set out in the Court’s order dated 28 January 2025 in an earlier lead matter and recast for the present batch.
The appeals challenged decisions of two chartered High Courts. In the Bombay matters, the High Court (judgment dated 12 December 2017) upheld the Government Resolution dated 23 August 2013 that made TET a pre-condition for appointment of teachers in primary schools in Maharashtra, holding that minority institutions’ rights to appoint teachers of their choice were not curtailed if the candidate was TET-qualified. Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust and the Association of Urdu Education Societies obtained leave to appeal despite not being parties in the writ proceedings. In another Bombay set, an interim order dated 1 April 2019 granted stay on directives mandating TET for certain teachers, with directions on salary release; the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai appealed.
From Madras, a common judgment dated 2 June 2023 held TET mandatory for teachers in non-minority institutions and struck down special rules that restricted TET to direct recruitment by clarifying that TET was mandatory for promotion as well. As regards minority institutions, the Court noted Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust and made it clear that those principles would not apply to minority institutions. In another Madras matter (judgment/orders dated 28 April 2018 and 8 January 2019), a teacher appointed in an aided minority school had his appointment approval refused for lack of TET; the writ was allowed and upheld on appeal in view of Pramati; the Union of India—though not a party before the High Court—obtained leave to appeal.
The Court recorded that arguments were heard at length. At the Court’s request, the learned Attorney General for India, Mr. R. Venkataramani, addressed the Bench on the issues; the learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. K.M. Nataraj, and several senior advocates and advocates were also heard for and against both (i) reference of Pramati for reconsideration and (ii) the mandatory nature of TET. A concise summary of submissions was provided in the judgment.
On the statutory framework, the Court noted amendments aligning the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (NCTE Act) with Article 21A and the RTE Act, including insertion of Section 12A empowering NCTE to determine minimum standards of education for school teachers via regulations. Section 23 of the RTE Act authorizes an academic authority to lay down minimum qualifications for appointment as teacher; by Notification S.O. 750(E) dated 31 March 2010, NCTE was appointed such authority. Pursuant thereto, NCTE’s Notification dated 23 August 2010 prescribed minimum qualifications for Classes I–VIII and made TET mandatory; subsequent 2011 amendments did not alter the TET requirement.
The judgment summarised positions opposing reconsideration and/or the mandatory character of TET, including contentions that (i) no State legislation in Maharashtra made TET mandatory; (ii) a strict TET requirement amid low pass rates would create teacher shortages; (iii) laws under Article 21A should not abrogate Article 30(1) rights of minority institutions; (iv) Section 1(4) RTE subjects the Act to Articles 29 and 30; (v) TET is an eligibility test, not a “minimum qualification” under Section 23; (vi) “appointment as a teacher” in Section 23 concerns initial appointment (not promotion) or external recruitment (not internal); and (vii) the 2010 notification’s exceptions and lack of consequences render TET directory.
The Court’s analysis also reviewed prior Supreme Court decisions on the RTE Act. It set out the majority and minority positions in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan (2012) on the applicability of Section 12(1)(c) to aided and unaided institutions, and the holdings in Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust (2014) including the constitutional questions it addressed and its conclusions on minority institutions. A tabular summary of RTE applicability across aided/unaided and minority/non-minority categories from those cases was reproduced.
Against that doctrinal background, the Bench distilled the present controversies into: (1) the TET’s status as a “minimum qualification” within Section 23, including for promotion and in-service teachers appointed prior to the RTE/NCTE regime; and (2) whether RTE obligations, including TET, can be imposed on minority institutions in view of Article 30(1), given Pramati. These were analysed under multiple headings, culminating in findings, a reference to a larger bench on the minority-institution question, and binding directions on TET’s applicability to in-service teachers with transitional relief.
The Court recorded, in terms, that: “Thus, we hold that the TET is one of the minimum qualifications that may be prescribed under Section 23 of the RTE Act.”
Addressing the manner of reference and judicial discipline, the Bench stated: “Sitting in a combination of two Judges, we are not oblivious to the bounds of judicial discipline and the enduring authority of ‘precedents’… We tread this path of making a reference with deference to all previous decisions of Constitution Benches on the manner of making a reference… We are mindful that we can merely doubt the view expressed by a larger Bench; not differ and depart from such view of a larger Bench.”
On the correctness of Pramati regarding minority institutions and the RTE Act, the Court stated: “In view of the foregoing discussions, we respectfully express our doubt as to whether Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (supra) [insofar as it exempts the application of the RTE Act to minority schools, whether aided or unaided, falling under clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution] has been correctly decided.”
The Bench noted that a coordinate bench in Ashwini Thanappan v. Director of Education had already indicated that Pramati required further examination and that reference remained pending: “The reference, we find, is yet to be answered.”
In relation to the consequences of non-qualification in TET for in-service teachers, the Court recorded: “Obtaining the TET qualification under the RTE Act is mandatory and the consequence of not obtaining such qualification flowing from the scheme of the RTE Act is that the in-service teachers would cease to have any right to continue in service.”
On promotion as well as appointment, the Court stated: “Having regard to the foregoing, we see no reason to hold that the minimum qualifications prescribed by the Council would apply only for initial appointment and not for promotion.”
The Court reiterated the character of TET: “We reiterate and hold that the TET is indeed a qualification, necessary to be held by a person seeking appointment as a teacher in a school. Only upon a person obtaining such qualification can he become eligible for appointment as a teacher.”
The Bench explained the purpose of the transitional provision under Section 23(2) and its proviso within the RTE framework, recording that to accept contentions of in-service teachers would render the proviso nugatory, and confirming that letters issued by the competent ministry had fixed a deadline beyond which non-TET-qualified in-service teachers could not continue.
On the immediate effect of the present decision vis-à-vis minority institutions pending reference, the Court observed within its orders chapter: “the provisions of the RTE Act have to be complied with by all schools as defined in Section 2(n) of the RTE Act except the schools established and administered by the minority – whether religious or linguistic – till such time the reference is decided and subject to the answers to the questions formulated above under section VII.”
Summarising the hearing, the judgment recorded the participation of law officers and numerous counsel: “We also requested Mr. Venkatramani, learned Attorney General for India to address us on the issue and to assist us in reaching the correct conclusion… we have heard the learned Attorney General, Mr. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General, and a host of other senior advocates and advocates…”
The Court directed the Registry as follows: “Registry is directed to place Civil Appeal Nos. 1364 - 1367, 1385 -1386 and 6364 of 2025 before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.” The Bench added that, in light of the State’s first-instance reliance on TET in certain appeals and the minority-institution context, “Civil Appeal Nos. 6365-6367 of 2025 too shall be governed by the direction in paragraph 211 above.”
Turning to in-service teachers, the Court issued operative directions: “Per the detailed discussions above and resting on the same, we hold that the provisions of the RTE Act have to be complied with by all schools as defined in Section 2(n) of the RTE Act except the schools established and administered by the minority – whether religious or linguistic – till such time the reference is decided and subject to the answers to the questions formulated above under section VII. Logically, it would follow that in-service teachers (irrespective of the length of their service) would also be required to qualify the TET to continue in service.”
Recognising hardships, the Bench invoked Article 142 to carve out transitional relief: “Bearing in mind their predicament, we invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and direct that those teachers who have less than five years’ service left, as on date, may continue in service till they attain the age of superannuation without qualifying the TET. However, we make it clear that if any such teacher (having less than five years’ service left) aspires for promotion, he will not be considered eligible without he/she having qualified the TET.”
For in-service teachers with more than five years remaining, the Court ordered: “they shall be under an obligation to qualify the TET within 2 years from date in order to continue in service. If any of such teachers fail to qualify the TET within the time that we have allowed, they shall have to quit service. They may be compulsorily retired; and paid whatever terminal benefits they are entitled to… If any teacher has not put in the qualifying service and there is some deficiency, his/her case may be considered by the appropriate department in the Government upon a representation being made by him/her.”
The Bench reiterated the promotion bar absent TET: “those aspiring for appointment and those in-service teachers aspiring for appointment by promotion must, however, qualify the TET; or else, they would have no right of consideration of their candidature.”
Disposing of the relevant matters, the Court concluded: “With the aforesaid modification of the impugned judgments/orders, all the appeals relatable to in-service teachers of non-minority schools stand disposed of on the above terms.”
Case Title: Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. The State of Maharashtra & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1063
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 1385 of 2025
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta; Justice Manmohan
