Supreme Court Mandates TET for Non-Minority Schools, Grants Relief to Existing Teachers

On September 1, the Supreme Court issued a historic decision in a series of appeals to teacher eligibility standards under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the RTE Act. The Court decided that passing the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) is a compulsory requirement to appointment and promotion of teachers in non-minority schools.

Meanwhile, the bench was aware of the plight of thousands of in service teachers. It gave two-year exemption to individuals who were named before the RTE Act but nonetheless have more than five years to serve before they can pass the TET. Curiously, the Court did not decide whether minority-run institutions would be subject to the provisions of TET, leaving that matter open before a broader Bench.

The decision supports the obligation of the state in Article 21A of the Constitution to provide a qualitative education, and also intersects with the right to the teachers and the autonomy of minority institutions in Article 30.

The Reason That The Supreme Court Intervened

The case emerged because of the dispute of state notices and volunteer procedures by which TET was intended to be applied as a prerequisite. The petitioners (most of them being experienced teachers and not having TET certification) asserted that retroactive administration of the test unfairly compromised their right to service.

State governments and the Union, nevertheless, pointed out that the cornerstone of teacher quality assurance under the RTE Act is TET. The test was introduced in 2011 and is meant to standardize teacher competence and make sure that the recruitment process is at minimum educational standards in the nation.

Different orders had been given by the High Courts, some knocking off, others affirming, blanket requirements upon existing teachers. This discrepancy forced the Supreme Court to come in the rescue and put the law to rest.

The Court's Balancing Act

The bench cleared three major principles:

1. Future Appointments are TET MandatoryAll new hires in non-minority schools have to be TET-qualified teachers. This is applicable in the promotion and at the entry level.

2. Relief In-Service TeachersEducators that were appointed under the RTE Act and those who have served a period of over five years are left to have two years of the grace period to qualify. This will avoid the issue of mass disqualification at a moment and will be aware of the realities of staff long-serving.

3. Question to Minority Schools DeferralThe Court also expressly refused to adjudicate minority institutions. It admitted that this posed constitutional issues related in Article 30 (minority rights to manage educational institutions) which needs to be considered by a larger Bench.

The Court made such a decision in order to emphasize its emphasis on gradual change as opposed to disruptive decrees.

Why TET Matters: Quality Dimension

The court ruling is an indication of the judiciary still focusing on the quality of education as an element of Article 21A. Previous decisions of the Court, e.g. State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder (2011), emphasized that quality of access to education is of no value.

TET in this way is not just a filter of recruitment. It is a constitutional process of making sure that the right to an education is provided in a meaningful way rather than formality. To the policymakers and practitioners, the ruling restates that the competence of the teacher is the key to achieving the RTE requirement.

Constitutional Crossroads: 21A, 30

The unaddressed problem of minority schools comes at the crossroads of two constitutional commitments:

• Article 21A: places on the state the duty to give free and quality education.

• Article 30: safeguards the right of minority to manage the educational institutions of their choice.

Should TET be used on minority schools, one may say that the state regulation has encroached on their independence. On the other hand, absolution may cause unbalanced quality of service in institutions.

The decision by the Court to leave the question pending is an indication that this constitutional tension is sensitive. The larger Bench will probably need to strike a balance between the regulatory power of the state and minority rights jurisprudence that have been formulated in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (2002) and P.A. Inamdar (2005).

Implications of Employment Rights and Service Law

In service law terms, the ruling has short-term and practical implications:

• Job Security: Teachers who have already served are not subject to being suddenly terminated as long as they pass TET within two years.

• Promotions: To promote a teacher, one has to satisfy TET requirements, and the promotions based on seniority and without the standardized qualification have ceased being practiced.

• Litigation Forecast: There will be a flood of cases regarding whether individual teachers are subject to the protection of the grace-period, especially the cases that have disputed dates of appointment.

Service litigation and education litigation attorneys must expect more advisory and litigation to occur within the coming two years.

Active Policy Modifications and State Governments

The decision asks state education departments to:

• Avoid TET and conduct it more often to provide in-service teachers with a realistic opportunity at compliance.

• Give explicit announcements about timelines, exemptions and procedures to prevent further misunderstanding.

• Establish capacity-building initiative to facilitate older teachers to prepare the test.

Otherwise, it might lead to the petitions of contempt or mass writs that would be opposed to bureaucratic inaction.

Minority Institutions: Next Flashpoint

The minority schools were not included in the immediate scope and even though they were not included by the Court, it is unlikely that the issue will stay inactive. The extent of Article 30 autonomy is a matter of national concern with close to 20 percent of the schools in some states run by religious and linguistic minorities.

Should the minority schools be relieved of TET, it will be contended that this will result in inequality in educational standards and set of standards.

In case they are subordinated to TET, minority bodies can question the regulation as some unconstitutional intervention.

The decision that would eventually be made by the larger Bench would thus revisit the boundaries of the state control over the minority education, a jurisprudential decisive moment in the Indian constitutional law.

It is Concluded: A Step Toward Quality, With Caution

The ruling of the Supreme Court on September 1 is a breakthrough in the history of education law in India. The Court has ensured the constitutional primacy of quality education in Article 21A in making TET mandatory to non-minority schools. It has accepted the social and administrative realities of the Indian education sector by providing a relief to existing teachers.

The question of the minority schools, still unsolved, however, does not allow considering this question to be completely solved. The future broader Bench decision has the potential to transform the limits between state regulation and minority rights in education, and the impact is much more substantial than TET.

At least, the decision is not only an indicator of judicial devotion to the academic norms but also a roadmap to gradual adherence. It is a call to remember that Indian constitutional law does not usually advance by general decrees, but by steps calculated to a certain degree.