Tamil Nadu Moves SC for Review of TET Requirement

The Tamil Nadu Government has moved the Supreme Court, filing a review petition against the ruling that enforces TET qualification for all teachers, challenging the Court’s interpretation of the same in Anjuman Ishaat E Taleem Trust vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 September 2025.

The Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust ruling, which exempts minority schools from the RTE Act, raised questions about its validity, according to ta bench of Justices Dipankar Dutta and Manmohan. The Court instructed the Chief Justice to take into account a wider Bench after noting earlier referrals and open issues regarding minority rights under Articles 29(2) and 30(1). Although it is normally forbidden to create new grounds, the Court acknowledged that Tamil Nadu had brought up the TET issue for the first time and that it concerned minority institutions. According to the Court, all schoolsโ€”aside from those run by minority groupsโ€”must abide by the RTE Act, which includes requiring in-service teachers to complete the TET.

Teachers with less than five years until retirement are exempted from TET, while others must qualify within two years to continue. Promotions and new appointments remain conditional on TET qualification, ensuring compliance with statutory requirements while acknowledging practical challenges.

The review petition argues that the proviso to Section 23(2), which allows non-qualified teachers five years to obtain the required credentials, applies solely to appointments made during the relaxation period and not to teachers recruited before 2010. Applying it retroactively, the plea asserts, would unjustly disqualify thousands of educators, undermining legislative intent and established service law principles.

The Court observed that Article 30(1) rights of minority institutions are not absolute and must be harmonized with Article 21A, which guarantees childrenโ€™s right to quality education. While minorities can establish and run schools preserving cultural and linguistic identity, they cannot claim immunity from regulations like the RTE Act. Compliance with teacher qualifications, infrastructure standards, and inclusive admission policies is essential to fulfill the constitutional mandate of elementary education. The Court emphasized that quality of teachers is central to meaningful education, citing prior judgments on rigorous training and standards.

TET qualification is therefore a mandatory requirement, even for in-service teachers, to maintain uniform educational standards. Minority schools retain autonomy but must participate in the shared constitutional responsibility of delivering education. Blanket exemptions undermining childrenโ€™s right to quality education, as granted in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust, were found constitutionally untenable.

Join Our WhatsApp Channel for Opportunity Updates

Get Daily Updates

Join our Telegram Channel for Opportunity Updates

Get Daily Updates

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Next Article

Welfare provisions to meet preponderance of probabilities standard

The Supreme Court has emphasized that Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, being a welfare provision, requires a preponderance-of-probabilities standard rather than criminal-standard proof. In the matter of the appeal under special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur, dated 15 May 2024, the Supreme Court on 8 October 2025, by a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, allowed the appeal in part and directed payment of compensation to the appellants, holding that the deceased, late Sanjesh Kumar Yagnik, was a bona fide passenger at the time of the alleged railway accident.

The Court noted that the deceased, on 19 May 2017, had purchased a second-class ticket from Indore to Ujjain on Train No. 12465, Ranthambore Express, and fell from the running train near Police Station Narwar, resulting in fatal head injuries. While the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, and the High Court had dismissed the claim for compensation on the ground that the ticket was not recovered and the investigating officer was not examined, the Supreme Court held that these procedural irregularities did not negate the claim. Relying on precedents including Union of India v. Rina Devi, Kamukayi v. Union of India, and Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India, the Court reaffirmed that once a claimant establishes prima facie evidence of travel and occurrence of an untoward incident, the burden shifts to the Railways to disprove bona fide travel.

Verified issuance of a ticket and corroboration from the Divisional Railway Manager constituted sufficient evidence to establish that the deceased was a passenger. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of both the Tribunal and the High Court, awarding compensation of โ‚น8,00,000 (Rupees Eight Lakhs) to the widow and minor son of the deceased, payable within eight weeks, with interest at 6% per annum in case of delay.

Takeaway: The Supreme Court clarified that technical lapses in ticket recovery or witness examination cannot defeat claims under Section 124-A of the Railways Act; once credible evidence establishes travel and an untoward incident, statutory presumption favors the claimant, ensuring access to compensation under this welfare provision.

Join Our WhatsApp Channel for Opportunity Updates

Get Daily Updates

Join our Telegram Channel for Opportunity Updates

Get Daily Updates

Next Article

Contact Us

For Submitting a Post

contact@lawdrishti.com

For Banner ads & admission campaigns

advertise@lawdrishti.com

Timing

Hours: 9 AM โ€“ 9 PM (Mon-Sat)

See the below animation to allow notifications.

Start getting Lawdrishti updates useful for you!

Contact Us

For Submitting a Post

For Banner ads & admission campaigns

Contact us
For Submitting a Post
For Banner ads & admission campaigns
Timing

Hours: 9 AM โ€“ 9 PM (Mon-Sat)