Why is a spectre of empty classrooms looming? | Explained

**Tamil Nadu Seeks Review of Supreme Court Judgment on Teachers Eligibility Test**

The State of Tamil Nadu has sought a review of a recent Supreme Court judgment mandating in-service teachers from Classes 1 to 8 in non-minority schools across India to clear the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) within two years, failing which they face compulsory retirement. Several other States have also expressed concerns over the September 1 judgment, highlighting its harsh impact on lakhs of teachers employed validly in government, aided, unaided, and private schools covered under Section 2(n) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009. These States are likely to follow Tamil Nadu’s lead and approach the top court.

### The Situation in Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu alone employs 4,49,850 teachers in government and aided schools, of whom 3,90,458 are not TET-qualified. The States have argued that implementing the Supreme Court ruling risks the collapse of the entire school system. This is due to the potential mass disqualification of teachers, which could lead to millions of children being denied classroom instruction.

Tamil Nadu further contends that the judgment directly conflicts with Article 21A of the Constitution — the fundamental right to free and compulsory education for children aged six to 14 years. The State seeks a balanced approach that ensures quality education while safeguarding children’s right to education.

### What Did the Judgment Mandate?

The two-judge Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, aware of the ground realities, authored the September 1 judgment. Justice Datta acknowledged the contributions of non-TET qualified teachers who were appointed before the RTE Act came into force.

The court recognized that dislodging elementary school teachers might be too harsh since many have taught students for decades without significant complaints. Therefore, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, the court exempted teachers with less than five years remaining before retirement from taking the TET. However, these teachers must qualify the TET if they seek promotion.

On the other hand, teachers with more than five years of service remaining must mandatorily clear the TET within two years from the date of the judgment. Failure to do so will result in compulsory retirement with terminal benefits. From now on, future appointments or promotions in non-minority schools will require TET qualification.

Additionally, the Bench referred the question of whether minority educational institutions should fall under the RTE Act to a larger Bench. The court observed that minority status has been misused by some school managements to avoid the RTE Act’s mandate for TET-qualified teachers in elementary education.

The judgment, based on appeals challenging the insistence on TET qualification even in minority institutions, criticized a 2014 Constitution Bench decision in the *Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust* case. That ruling had excluded minority institutions from the RTE Act’s ambit entirely.

The Supreme Court emphasized the need to bring minority-run schools, whether religious or linguistic, within the RTE fold to uphold the universal elementary education vision. It stated that exempting minority institutions fragments the common schooling vision and weakens the idea of inclusivity and universality envisaged by Article 21A.

### Arguments Presented in the Review Petitions

Review petitions filed by Tamil Nadu and Kerala-based teachers’ union Deseeya Adhyapakha Parishad (NTU) argue that while enhancing teaching quality is a legitimate objective, forcing pre-RTE Act appointees to pass the TET under threat of disqualification is disproportionate.

Tamil Nadu has recommended less intrusive alternatives such as:

– In-service training,
– Capacity-building workshops,
– Refresher courses,
– Bridging programmes

These approaches, the State contends, can improve teaching quality without destabilizing the education system.

### The Core Legal Issue: Interpretation of Section 23 of the RTE Act

At the heart of the controversy lies the interpretation of Section 23 of the RTE Act. According to Section 23(1), the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) prescribed minimum qualifications for appointment as a teacher for Classes 1 to 8 through its August 23, 2010 notification. An essential qualification is passing the TET conducted by the appropriate government.

The rationale behind including the TET is to introduce national standards and benchmarks of teacher quality in the recruitment process.

However, Tamil Nadu in its review petition contends that Section 23(1) applies only to future recruitments. The State points to Section 23(2), which empowers the Centre to relax minimum qualifications through notifications for a limited period (not exceeding five years) to address situations like teacher shortages.

Furthermore, a proviso attached to Section 23 clarifies that any teacher who, at the commencement of the RTE Act, did not possess the minimum qualifications (including TET) must acquire them within five years.

Tamil Nadu argues that Section 23 does not mandate a blanket TET requirement, nor does it allow retrospective disqualification of teachers who were validly appointed before the minimum qualifications notification.

The State warns that enforcing the September 1 judgment as it stands will result in empty classrooms and cause immense distress among teachers struggling to secure their livelihoods over the next two years.

—

The evolving situation highlights the tension between maintaining teacher quality standards and protecting the rights of current educators and students’ access to education. As Tamil Nadu and other States push for a review, the Supreme Court’s response will be closely watched by stakeholders across the country.
https://www.thehindu.com/education/why-is-a-spectre-of-empty-classrooms-looming-explained/article70125871.ece