The Tamil Nadu Government has filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against the recent judgment that mandated the Teachers’ Eligibility Test (TET) qualification even for teachers appointed prior to 2010. The plea raises important legal and constitutional questions regarding the interpretation of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) and its retrospective application.
Background of the Judgment
On September 1, 2025, the Supreme Court held that teachers appointed before the RTE Act came into force must also acquire TET qualification within two years, provided they have more than five years of service left. The ruling was part of a broader judicial effort to improve teaching standards in line with Article 21A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to free and compulsory education for children.
While the judgment was intended to ensure uniform quality across schools, the Tamil Nadu Government contends that its application to teachers appointed before 2010 is both legally unsound and administratively disruptive.
Tamil Nadu Government’s Stand
The State argues that the TET requirement should apply only prospectively, i.e., to teachers appointed after the RTE Act came into force on 1 April 2010, and not to those who were recruited earlier under valid service rules.
Interpretation of Section 23 of the RTE Act
Tamil Nadu’s petition stresses that Section 23(1) lays down qualifications for future recruitments, whereas Section 23(2) empowers the Central Government to relax minimum qualifications for a limited period when there is a shortage of trained teachers. The proviso under Section 23(2), which says that teachers appointed during the relaxation must acquire the qualification within five years, applies only to post-2010 recruits under relaxed norms.
By extending this requirement to pre-2010 appointees, the judgment, the State argues, retroactively imposes a new qualification requirement, which was never envisaged by the legislature.
Impact on Tamil Nadu’s Education System
Tamil Nadu has one of the largest school education systems in India. Out of 4,49,850 government teachers, nearly 3,90,458 do not hold TET certification. If the September 1 judgment is applied, a majority of these teachers could face disqualification, leading to what the petition calls an “imminent collapse” of the education system.
The State warns that the sudden removal of such a large number of teachers will cause widespread disruption in classrooms, directly affecting the fundamental right to education under Article 21A for millions of children.
Proportionality and Alternatives
The petition also invokes the principle of proportionality, a doctrine frequently applied by Indian courts to balance individual rights against legitimate state aims. While the objective of enhancing teaching standards is legitimate, the method chosen—compulsory TET for pre-2010 teachers—is described as manifestly disproportionate.
The State suggests less intrusive alternatives to achieve the same policy goal without destabilizing the education system, such as:
- Mandatory in-service training
- Refresher courses for teachers
- Capacity-building workshops
- Bridging programs to upgrade skills
These methods, the State argues, would both preserve livelihoods and gradually improve education quality, whereas retrospective TET imposition risks mass unemployment and systemic breakdown.
Wider National Implications
The Tamil Nadu petition also notes that this issue is not confined to one State. Several States, including West Bengal and Odisha, availed relaxations under Section 23(2) of the RTE Act due to inadequate teacher training institutions at the time. Extending TET retrospectively across the board would therefore impact lakhs of teachers nationwide, raising the risk of large-scale vacancies and classroom disruptions across India.
Constitutional and Legal Dimensions
The review petition raises multiple constitutional law concerns.
- Article 21A – Right to Education: Removing a majority of serving teachers could infringe children’s right to education by leaving schools understaffed.
- Article 14 – Equality Before Law: Treating pre-2010 appointees (who complied with then-existing recruitment rules) the same as post-2010 recruits under relaxed conditions may be arbitrary and violate equality principles.
- Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation: Teachers appointed before the RTE Act had no requirement to pass TET. Introducing it retrospectively undermines their legitimate expectation of continued service.
- Principle of Non-Retrospectivity: Service law norms generally do not disqualify those who were validly appointed under earlier rules. The petition insists that retrospective application is inconsistent with established legal principles.
The Petition’s Warning
The review plea particularly emphasizes the two-year deadline set by the Court for compliance. This, the State argues, will force thousands of teachers to focus on preparing for TET examinations instead of teaching, ironically reducing classroom quality.
The petition states:
“Even if the objective of enhancing teaching quality is legitimate, compelling pre-2010 appointees to pass TET on pain of disqualification is manifestly disproportionate. Less intrusive alternatives such as in-service training, capacity building, refresher courses, or bridging programs would achieve the same goal without extinguishing livelihoods and destabilizing the education system.”
Counsel and Representation
The review petition has been filed through Advocate-on-Record Sabarish Subramanian and has been settled by Senior Advocate P. Wilson, who has frequently represented Tamil Nadu in constitutional and federal disputes.
Conclusion
The Tamil Nadu Government’s review petition highlights a pressing conflict between the need for high-quality teaching and the practical realities of India’s education system. While the Supreme Court’s September 1 judgment was aimed at ensuring better teacher qualifications, its retrospective application could destabilize one of the largest public education networks in the country.
The Court now faces the difficult task of reconciling educational reforms with constitutional safeguards. Its decision on this review petition will not only affect thousands of teachers in Tamil Nadu but also set a precedent for education policy and service law across India.
The outcome will determine whether the judiciary insists on strict compliance with statutory qualifications at the cost of disruption, or whether it adopts a balanced, phased approach that secures both teachers’ livelihoods and students’ rights under Article 21A.
Also Read
