Case Note & Summary
The appeals arose from divergent orders of the Bombay and Madras High Courts concerning the mandatory requirement of the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for teachers in minority educational institutions and for promotion of in-service teachers under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). The lead appellant, Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust, a recognised minority education society, challenged the Bombay High Court judgment dated 12 December 2017 in Writ Petition No. 4640 of 2016. That judgment upheld a Government Resolution dated 23 August 2013 by the Government of Maharashtra making TET qualification a precondition for appointment of teachers in primary schools. The Bombay High Court had relied on Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat, (1974) 1 SCC 717, and held that the resolution did not prevent minority institutions from appointing eligible TET-qualified candidates. Azad Education Society, the original writ petitioner, did not appeal, but Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust and Association of Urdu Education Societies were granted permission to file special leave petitions. Other appeals challenged a Madras High Court judgment dated 22 July 2022, where a Division Bench dismissed writ appeals by the State of Tamil Nadu and education officers. The underlying writ petitions by the Management of Islamiah Higher Secondary Schools had challenged rejection of appointment proposals on ground of surplus staff; a Single Judge allowed the writ petitions, and the Division Bench affirmed. In the Supreme Court, the State of Tamil Nadu argued for the first time that the teachers lacked TET qualification. A further set of appeals challenged a Bombay High Court common order dated 1 April 2019 granting interim relief in four writ petitions; those petitions were filed by teachers of Bombay Memon's Education Society, a minority society, after the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai directed the school to terminate teachers who failed to qualify TET by 30 March 2019 and informed them of the requirement. The Supreme Court, by order dated 28 January 2025, framed two broad issues: first, whether the State can insist that a teacher in a minority educational institution must qualify TET and whether that would affect minority rights; second, whether in-service teachers appointed before the 29 July 2011 NCTE notification with 25-30 years experience must qualify TET for promotion. The court noted these issues were of seminal importance. Some appeals were withdrawn on 20 February 2025, and the remaining were heard and reserved. The parties' arguments reflected three positions: minority institutions claimed they could not be compelled to recruit only TET-qualified teachers; State authorities argued TET qualification was mandatory for all institutions, including minority institutions; and individual teachers contended that TET should not be a mandatory promotion criterion for those appointed before the RTE Act. The excerpt of the judgment ends before the court's final analysis and decision; however, the index indicates the Supreme Court proposed to analyze the constitutional journey of Article 21A, the RTE Act, the position of minority institutions under Section 12(1)(c), the cost of exclusion, and whether Article 30(1) provides blanket immunity, and to later make an order of reference to a larger bench and an order on TET applicability to in-service teachers.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Education - Minority Educational Institutions - Constitution of India, Articles 21A, 30(1) - The Supreme Court framed the issue whether the State can require teachers in minority educational institutions to qualify the Teacher Eligibility Test and whether such requirement infringes minority rights under Article 30(1). The court noted that multiple appeals by minority institutions, State authorities, and individual teachers raised this seminal question (Paras 1-3). B) Service Law - Teacher Eligibility Test - Promotion of In-Service Teachers - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, Section 23(1) and Section 23(2) proviso - The Supreme Court framed the second issue whether teachers appointed before the 2011 NCTE notification with 25-30 years experience must qualify TET for promotion. The court noted this issue was originally framed by a coordinate Bench in B. Annie Packiarani Bai and recast (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
a) Whether the State can insist that a teacher seeking appointment in a minority educational institution must qualify the TET; and if so, whether providing such qualification would affect any rights of the minority institutions guaranteed under the Constitution of India; b) Whether teachers appointed much prior to issuance of Notification No.61-1/2011/NCTE (N & S) dated 29th July, 2011 by the National Council for Teacher Education under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act read with the newly inserted proviso (second proviso) in Section 23(2) and having years of teaching experience (say, 25 to 30 years) are required to qualify in the TET for being considered eligible for promotion?
Final Decision
Not mentioned in the provided excerpt; the index indicates the Supreme Court proposed to make an order of reference to a larger bench and an order on TET applicability to in-service teachers, but the operative terms are not included.
Law Points
- Teacher Eligibility Test
- minority educational institutions
- Right to Education Act
- Article 21A
- Article 30(1)
- reasonable restriction
- Section 12(1)(c)
- Section 23
- in-service teachers
- promotion eligibility
- National Council for Teacher Education notification
