TET compulsory for aspiring teachers in non-minority schools: SC
Teachers with less than five years of service left need not qualify for TET unless they wish to be considered for promotion.
Teachers with less than five years of service left need not qualify for TET unless they wish to be considered for promotion.
Teachers with less than five years of service left need not qualify for TET unless they wish to be considered for promotion.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that clearing the Teachers’ Eligibility Test (TET) is compulsory for both aspiring teachers and in-service teachers seeking promotions in non-minority schools.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan clarified that all teachers appointed before the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), who have more than five years of service left, must pass the TET within two years to remain in service. Failure to do so will result in compulsory retirement, although terminal benefits will be provided if qualifying service rules are met.
At the same time, the Court acknowledged practical constraints. It ruled that in-service teachers with less than five years of service left need not qualify for TET unless they wish to be considered for promotion. Such teachers will be allowed to continue until superannuation without passing the test.
The Court emphasised that aspirants for fresh appointments and serving teachers seeking promotion must qualify for the TET without exception. The judgment came in a batch of appeals addressing whether the RTE Act applies to minority institutions and if mandatory TET violates Article 30, which protects minority rights. The bench expressed doubt over the 2014 Constitution Bench ruling that exempted minority institutions from the RTE Act. However, until a larger bench reconsiders the issue, TET will not apply to teachers in minority schools.
The ruling reaffirmed the National Council for Teacher Education’s (NCTE) 2011 guidelines, making TET mandatory for teacher appointments. By invoking Article 142, the Court tailored its directions to strike a balance between the law and ground realities, particularly for long-serving teachers nearing retirement.
(With LiveLaw inputs)