NCTE का कबूलनामा । पुराने शिक्षको के लिए TET अनिवार्य नही था । TET & NonTet Teacher's । SupremeCourt

Описание: An overview of Supreme Court decision mandating Aspiring and In-service Teachers to qualify the TET

Minority educational institutions who are aggrieved because they are not being allowed to recruit teachers who have not qualified in the TET.

Authorities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution claiming that qualifying the TET is a mandatory requirement for appointment of teachers not only in non-minority but also minority institutions, whether aided or unaided.

The NCTE vide Notification F. No. 61- 03/20/2010/NCTE/(N&S) dated 23-8-2010 laid down minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in classes I to VIII in a school referred to in Section 2(n) of the RTE Act. This is when the TET was made mandatory for the first time. By three subsequent notifications, NCTE made amendments in this notification. Inter alia, certain changes were made in clause 1 (which laid down minimum qualifications for appointment) regarding the educational requirement. The mandatory requirement of TET remained unchanged.

 Teachers’ Eligibility Test Mandatory to Continue iT
ach ers’ Eligibility Test Mandatory to Continue in Service

Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v The State of Maharastra & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that teachers with more than five years of service remaining must clear the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to continue in their jobs. It referred to a larger Bench the question of whether the Right to Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), applies to Minority Educational Institutions (MEI).


Keyphrases: Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009—Section 23—Teacher Eligibility Test (TET)—In-service teachers with more than 5 years to superannuation must qualify TET within two years to continue in service—Whether Minority Educational Institutions should comply with RTE Act referred to a larger Bench—Section 12(1)(c) of RTE Act—minority rights under Article 30

1. These civil appeals challenge judgments/orders of two of the three chartered high courts of the nation delivered/made on multiple
proceedings instituted before them. Inter alia, questions as regards applicability of the Teacher Eligibility Test1 to minority educational institutions and whether qualifying in the TET is a mandatory prerequisite for recruitment of teachers as well as promotion of teachers already in service, were under consideration in such proceedings. In brief, the appellants before this Court are

a. Minority educational institutions who are aggrieved because they are not being allowed to recruit teachers who have not qualified in the TET;
b. Authorities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution claiming that qualifying the TET is a mandatory requirement for appointment of teachers not only in non-minority but also minority institutions, whether aided or unaided; and
c. Individual teachers, who were appointed prior to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 20092 being enforced, claiming that the TET qualification cannot be made a mandatory requirement for the purposes of their promotion.

2. The present set of appeals raise questions of seminal importance. Vide order dated 28th January, 2025 in the erstwhile lead matter, viz. Civil Appeal No.1384 of 20253, the issues for consideration were framed by us. The said appeal came to be disposed of as withdrawn along with certain other appeals, vide order dated 20th February 2025, as the appellant(s) did not wish to pursue the appeals any further; however, the remaining tagged appeals were heard and subsequently reserved for judgment

3. Two broad issues arising for consideration were noted in the order dated 28th January, 2025. The first issue was framed by a coordinate Bench vide order dated 14th February, 2022 in B. Annie Packiarani Bai (supra) whereas the other was framed by us, upon hearing counsel for the parties who had the occasion to address the Court on 28th January, 2025. The issues, as recast, read as under:

a. Whether the State can insist that a teacher seeking appointment in a minority educational institution must qualify the TET? If so, whether providing such a qualification would affect any of the rights of the minority institutions guaranteed under the Constitution of India?
and
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 Education4 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?

#suprimecort #tet #teachereligibilitytest #centralemployeesnews #centralgovernment #basicshikshavibhag #basicshikshanewsupdate #basicteacher
#highcourt #rte #ncte #righttoeducation
#chayanvetanman #gradepayselection #gradepay
#jantarmantar #delhi #atewa