TET as a Minimum Qualification and Promotions Criterion under the RTE Act; Reference Sought on Minority Exemption in Pramati: A Comprehensive Commentary on Anjuman Ishaat‑e‑Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 1063)

TET as a Minimum Qualification and Promotions Criterion under the RTE Act; Reference Sought on Minority Exemption in Pramati

A Comprehensive Commentary on Anjuman Ishaat‑e‑Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 1063)

I. Introduction

In Anjuman Ishaat‑e‑Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 1063), a two‑Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India (Dipankar Datta, J.; Manmohan, J.) addressed issues of seminal importance at the intersection of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), minority rights under Article 30(1) of the Constitution, and the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) as a condition for recruitment and promotion of school teachers.

The Court delivered two pivotal outcomes:

  • It authoritatively held that the TET is a “minimum qualification” under Section 23 of the RTE Act and that passing the TET is mandatory not only for initial appointment but also for promotion of teachers in schools to which the RTE Act applies. Recognising transitional hardship, the Court granted calibrated relief under Article 142 for long-serving in-service teachers.
  • It expressed serious doubts about the correctness of the Constitution Bench ruling in Pramati Educational and CULTURAL TRUST V. UNION of India (2014) 8 SCC 1, which exempted all minority institutions (aided and unaided) from the RTE Act, and referred a set of framed questions for consideration by a larger Bench, while maintaining the status quo for minority institutions until the reference is decided.

The decision consolidates quality-of-education standards through TET across non-minority schools and simultaneously opens the door to a potential reconfiguration of the scope of minority exemptions from the RTE Act—particularly Section 12(1)(c)—by seeking reconsideration of Pramati.

Parties included minority educational institutions, State authorities, the Union of India, and in-service teachers. The principal controversies were:

  • Whether the State can insist that teachers in minority institutions must qualify the TET, and if so, whether this violates Article 30(1) minority rights.
  • Whether teachers appointed prior to the NCTE’s 2010–2011 TET regime must pass TET to be eligible for promotion; and whether long-serving, pre-RTE Act appointees can be compelled to pass TET to continue or advance in service.

II. Summary of the Judgment

Key Holdings

  • TET is a minimum qualification under Section 23 of the RTE Act:
    • Passing TET is mandatory for initial appointment and for promotion of teachers in schools to which the RTE Act applies.
    • The Court rejected the argument that “appointment” in Section 23 refers only to initial recruitment. “Appointment” includes promotion.
    • The Court also rejected the contention that TET is merely an “eligibility” test and not a “qualification.” It held TET to be part of the minimum qualification regime.
  • Transitional relief under Article 142:
    • In-service teachers with less than five years’ service left as on 01.09.2025 may continue without TET till superannuation, but they are ineligible for promotion unless they clear TET.
    • In-service teachers with five or more years to superannuation must clear TET within two years from 01.09.2025 (i.e., by 01.09.2027) to continue in service. Failure will entail compulsory retirement with terminal benefits subject to qualifying service.
  • Reference on Pramati (2014) to a larger Bench:
    • The Court recorded grave doubts about Pramati’s blanket exemption of minority institutions (aided and unaided) from the RTE Act, particularly because Pramati’s reasoning focused on Section 12(1)(c) but extended the exemption to the entire Act.
    • It framed specific questions on the harmonisation of Articles 21A and 30(1), the effect of Article 29(2), and whether Section 12(1)(c) can be read down to include disadvantaged/weaker-section children from within the minority community, thereby avoiding annihilation of minority character.
    • Interim position: until the reference is decided, RTE Act provisions must be complied with by all schools under Section 2(n) except minority institutions (religious or linguistic). Thus, the TET mandate presently binds non-minority schools; for minority institutions, the status quo under Pramati continues pending the larger Bench’s decision.
  • Appeals disposition:
    • Appeals relating to in-service teachers of non-minority schools were disposed of in terms of the TET holdings and transitional relief.
    • Appeals involving minority institutions were placed before the Hon’ble CJI for appropriate directions in light of the reference.
    • In certain Tamil Nadu matters (where the TET argument was raised for the first time in the Supreme Court), the Court noted the procedural bar but nonetheless tagged them to the reference because they concern minority institutions.

III. The Legal Landscape and Precedents

Constitutional Background

  • Article 21A: Fundamental right to free and compulsory education for children aged 6–14 (inserted by the 86th Amendment, 2002).
  • RTE Act, 2009: Gives effect to Article 21A; sets minimum standards for access and quality (teacher qualifications, pupil–teacher ratio, infrastructure, curriculum, inclusion, Section 12(1)(c), etc.).
  • NCTE Act (as amended): Empowers NCTE (Section 12A) to set minimum standards of school teachers; NCTE designated as “academic authority” under Section 23 of the RTE Act (S.O. 750(E), 31.03.2010).
  • NCTE Notifications/Regulations:
    • 23.08.2010 and 29.07.2011: TET made mandatory for classes I–VIII in schools under Section 2(n) RTE.
    • 11.02.2011: TET Guidelines (rationale—national standards, teacher education quality, stakeholder confidence).
    • 2014 Regulations: Continue TET as a minimum qualification.

Precedents Shaping the Controversy

  • Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 1:
    • RTE Act largely upheld; Section 12(1)(c) (25% quota at entry level) held inapplicable to unaided minority institutions but applicable to aided minority institutions and to non-minority institutions.
  • Pramati Educational and CULTURAL TRUST V. UNION of India (2014) 8 SCC 1:
    • Upheld validity of Articles 15(5) and 21A; but held the RTE Act inapplicable to all minority institutions (aided and unaided).
    • Reasoning centered on Section 12(1)(c); extended to entire Act without analyzing other RTE provisions relative to Article 30(1).
  • T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481 and P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 6 SCC 537:
    • Recognize minority autonomy but accept reasonable regulations consistent with standards, national interest; “right to administer is not right to maladminister.”
  • In re: The Kerala Education Bill, 1957 (1959 SCR 995) and Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society (1974) 1 SCC 717:
    • Article 30(1) is not absolute; Article 29(2) applies to aided institutions; a “sprinkling of outsiders” does not destroy minority character.
  • Quality of teachers and teacher training:
    • N.M. Nageshwaramma v. State of A.P. 1986 Supp SCC 166; State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Roundale (1992) 4 SCC 435; Chandigarh Administration v. Rajni Vali (2000) 2 SCC 42; State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436; Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust v. Yogeshbhai Patel (2012) 9 SCC 310—each emphasising that qualified, trained teachers are indispensable to the right to education and to educational standards.
  • Employment policy and qualifications:
  • Interpretive tools:

IV. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Article 21A, the RTE Act, and the primacy of quality in elementary education

The Court traces the constitutional journey from Directive Principle (Article 45) to enforceable fundamental right (Article 21A), drawing from Mohini Jain and Unni Krishnan, and underlines that elementary education is foundational for human dignity and meaningful enjoyment of other fundamental rights. The RTE Act is the legislative “life-breath” of Article 21A, expressing the State’s duty to ensure universal and quality elementary education, with core regulatory essentials such as trained teachers, pupil–teacher ratio, safe and inclusive schools, and common curricular standards.

2. Harmonising Article 21A and Article 30(1): No inherent conflict

While recognising the high constitutional value of both Article 21A and Article 30(1), the Court stresses harmonious construction. Article 30(1) protects minority autonomy but does not confer blanket immunity from all regulation; educational standards and child-centric protections under the RTE Act are not ideological incursions but regulatory essentials. The Court emphasises that Article 19(6) enables reasonable regulations in the larger public interest—the RTE Act advances a constitutional public good and meets this standard of reasonableness and proportionality.

3. Doubts about Pramati: From Section 12(1)(c) to the entire RTE Act?

The Bench identifies a structural gap in Pramati’s reasoning: the Constitution Bench’s concern centered on Section 12(1)(c) (25% entry-level admissions of children from weaker sections/disadvantaged groups) and its potential to affect minority character; however, Pramati extended exemption to the whole of the RTE Act for all minority institutions—without examining other provisions like teacher qualifications, infrastructure, safety, etc., vis-à-vis Article 30(1).

The Court also notes:

  • Article 29(2)—which bars denial of admission to State-aided institutions on grounds of religion, race, caste, language—was not engaged by Pramati in answering the second issue, although it is directly relevant for aided minority schools.
  • The empirical concerns: the NCPCR (2021) study shows very low representation (8.76%) of socially/economically disadvantaged students in minority schools and a post-2006 surge in claims to minority status, suggesting possible regulatory arbitrage.

4. Reconciling Section 12(1)(c) with Article 30(1)

Even if Section 12(1)(c) is seen to affect admissions autonomy, the Court indicates a constitutionally consistent solution short of total exemption: reading down Section 12(1)(c) to permit fulfillment of the 25% requirement by admitting children of the same minority community who are also within “weaker sections” or “disadvantaged groups” under Section 2(d) and (e). This would preserve minority character and further intra-community upliftment, while also advancing universalisation and inclusion.

5. TET: Minimum qualification and applicability to promotions

Construing Section 23 of the RTE Act and the NCTE’s 2010–2011 notifications, the Court holds:

  • TET is a minimum qualification under Section 23(1), not a mere eligibility condition.
  • “Appointment” includes promotion as recognised in service jurisprudence (e.g., M. Ramachandran, K. Narayanan); hence, the TET requirement applies to promotions.
  • Transitional clauses in Section 23(2) and the 2017 amendment (second proviso) underline the legislative intent to bring in-service teachers into conformity with minimum qualifications within a set time-frame.

6. Article 142 calibration

Acknowledging equitable considerations for long-serving teachers appointed prior to the TET regime, the Court crafts a pragmatic, time-bound transition:

  • Less than five years to superannuation (as of 01.09.2025): may continue without TET, but not eligible for promotion without TET.
  • Five or more years to superannuation: must pass TET within two years (by 01.09.2027) to continue; failing which, compulsory retirement with terminal benefits (subject to qualifying service).

7. The Reference: Questions for the Larger Bench

The Bench refrains from overruling Pramati and, adhering to judicial discipline, refers the following issues to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for potential consideration by a larger Bench:

  • Whether Pramati correctly exempted all minority institutions from the entire RTE Act.
  • Whether the RTE Act infringes Article 30(1); and whether Section 12(1)(c) could be saved by reading it down to include disadvantaged/weaker-section children from within the minority community.
  • What is the effect of not considering Article 29(2) while exempting aided minority institutions?
  • Whether, absent any analysis beyond Section 12(1)(c), the entire RTE Act could be declared inapplicable to minority institutions.

Interim compliance direction: RTE Act applies to all schools under Section 2(n) except minority schools (religious or linguistic) until the reference is answered; the TET mandate thus presently binds non‑minority schools, while minority institutions remain under the existing Pramati exemption pending the larger Bench decision.

V. Impact Analysis

1. Immediate operational impact

  • Non-minority schools (aided and unaided) under Section 2(n):
    • Must ensure all new recruits have passed TET.
    • Must amend promotion rules/rosters: no promotion without TET.
    • Audit in-service staff and track: those < 5 years to superannuation can continue; those ≥ 5 years must pass TET by 01.09.2027 to continue.
  • Minority institutions (religious or linguistic):
    • Status quo under Pramati remains until the larger Bench decides. The present judgment expressly keeps minority schools outside RTE compliance for now.
    • However, the Court’s reasoning signals a strong possibility of recalibration by a larger Bench. Prudent institutions may proactively align with TET and core RTE standards to manage risk and ensure quality.
  • Teachers:
    • In-service teachers in non-minority schools must plan and pass TET by 01.09.2027 if they have ≥ 5 years of service left; those with < 5 years left can continue but cannot be promoted without TET.
    • Prospective promotions in non-minority schools will require TET regardless of date of initial appointment.
  • States/Appropriate Governments:
    • Must ensure regular conduct of TET with adequate frequency, capacity, and support.
    • Align State service rules, recruitment notifications, and promotion regulations with the judgment.
    • Set up tracking and support mechanisms for in-service teachers (e.g., preparatory courses, leave, multiple attempts).

2. Systemic and doctrinal impact

  • Quality imperative entrenched: The judgment cements TET as the gateway qualification for ensuring baseline teacher quality across non-minority institutions and, subject to the larger Bench, possibly across minority institutions too.
  • Potential rebalancing of minority exemptions: The Court’s doubts about Pramati, especially the indication to read down Section 12(1)(c), foreshadow a measured approach—preserving minority identity while ensuring inclusion and quality under Article 21A.
  • Article 29(2) revival: The omission in Pramati to engage Article 29(2) vis-à-vis aided minority institutions is flagged for reconsideration—this could reshape the admissions autonomy of aided minority schools.
  • Administrative readiness: States and school managements must prepare for a scenario where the larger Bench brings some or all minority institutions within the RTE fold, at least for non-demography-altering standards (teacher qualifications, safety, infrastructure).

VI. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Article 21A: Fundamental right to free and compulsory education for children aged 6–14; requires the State to legislate and implement universal, quality elementary education.
  • RTE Act, 2009: Statute implementing Article 21A; prescribes minimum standards for access and quality; Section 23 empowers NCTE to prescribe teacher qualifications.
  • NCTE and TET: NCTE is the academic authority under Section 23; TET is a nationally benchmarked teacher qualification test mandated for classes I–VIII in schools under Section 2(n) of the RTE Act.
  • Article 30(1): Protects the right of minorities (religious or linguistic) to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice; not absolute; subject to reasonable, non-annihilatory regulation.
  • Article 29(2): No citizen shall be denied admission to any State-maintained or State-aided educational institution on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language, or any of them.
  • Section 12(1)(c): Requires private unaided (and certain other) schools to admit at least 25% of Class I seats from children of weaker sections/disadvantaged groups in the neighbourhood; accompanied by reimbursement.
  • Qualification vs eligibility: The Court treats TET as part of “minimum qualifications” under Section 23; a person becomes eligible for appointment/promotion only upon possessing such qualifications.
  • Appointment includes promotion: In service law, “recruitment/appointment” can be direct or by promotion/transfer; thus Section 23 covers promotions too.
  • Reading down: An interpretive tool to preserve constitutionality by narrowing a provision’s application; here, Section 12(1)(c) could be satisfied by admitting disadvantaged/weaker-section children from within the minority community, maintaining minority character.
  • Ratio decidendi vs obiter dicta: Binding law (ratio) is what is necessary to the decision; observations not essential to the decision (obiter) carry persuasive weight but are not binding. The Court hints that Pramati’s blanket exemption may exceed its ratio.
  • Article 142 relief: The Supreme Court’s power to do complete justice; used here to grant a time‑bound transition for in‑service teachers.

VII. Compliance Roadmaps and Checklists

1. For State Governments/Appropriate Governments

  • Publish consolidated directions aligning service rules and promotion regulations with the judgment.
  • Schedule TETs at sufficient frequency till at least 01.09.2027; ensure capacity for in-service teachers.
  • Create teacher support: preparatory modules, exam fee waivers/subsidies for government-aided schools, exam leave policies.
  • Set up a monitoring dashboard:
    • Map all in-service teachers in non-minority schools by years of service left.
    • Track TET attempts/success status.
  • In minority schools, maintain status quo but sensitize stakeholders on likely future harmonisation and recommend voluntary compliance with TET and core RTE standards.

2. For Non-Minority Schools (Aided and Unaided)

  • Update HR policies:
    • No appointment or promotion without TET.
    • Flag in-service teachers with ≥5 years service left; ensure they are supported to pass TET by 01.09.2027.
  • Align recruitment advertisements and promotion circulars with the TET mandate.
  • Maintain auditable records of TET compliance for inspections and approvals.

3. For Minority Institutions

  • Presently exempt from RTE compliance per Pramati and the Court’s interim direction; however:
    • Anticipate possible re-calibration by larger Bench; consider proactively adopting TET for new appointments and promotions.
    • Document community composition and admissions to demonstrate genuine minority character and intra-community service.

4. For Teachers

  • Non-minority schools:
    • If ≥5 years from retirement: register, prepare, and clear TET by 01.09.2027.
    • If <5 years from retirement: you may continue without TET till superannuation, but no promotion without TET.
  • Minority schools:
    • TET not mandatory presently; nonetheless, obtaining TET is strategically advisable given potential future changes and for mobility across institutions.

VIII. The Larger Questions: What the Seven‑Judge Bench May Decide

  • Does Article 21A’s quality mandate (teacher qualifications, infrastructure, safety) apply to minority institutions without annihilating their character?
  • Can Section 12(1)(c) be constitutionally applied to minority institutions if read down to permit fulfilling the quota from the same minority community’s disadvantaged/weaker-section children?
  • What is the effect of Article 29(2) for aided minority institutions in admissions?
  • Was Pramati’s extension from Section 12(1)(c) to exempting the entire RTE Act justified?

IX. Conclusion

Anjuman Ishaat‑e‑Taleem Trust is a watershed in two ways. First, it firmly anchors the Teacher Eligibility Test as a minimum qualification under Section 23 of the RTE Act that applies to both appointments and promotions, thereby entrenching the quality imperative in elementary education across non‑minority schools. The Court’s pragmatic Article 142 transition balances systemic reform with fairness to long‑serving teachers.

Second, by doubting Pramati’s blanket exemption and seeking a larger Bench’s guidance, the Court has initiated a constitutional conversation on harmonising Article 21A’s universal, quality‑centric goals with Article 30(1)’s protective autonomy, with Article 29(2) as a critical equality anchor for aided institutions. The suggested reading down of Section 12(1)(c) offers a principled path to reconcile minority identity with inclusion and universalisation, instead of a wholesale retreat from the RTE framework.

For now, non‑minority schools must urgently align all appointments and promotions with the TET mandate and implement the two‑year transition. Minority institutions retain the Pramati‑based exemption pending the larger Bench’s decision, but prudence and public interest favour voluntary adherence to TET and core RTE standards. The forthcoming reference promises to shape the contours of India’s common schooling vision, balancing diversity with equality and child‑centric quality education at the foundational stage.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Supreme Court Of India

Advocates

SHAKIL AHMAD SYED

Comments