TET Mandatory for In-Service Teachers of Non-Minority Schools; Pramati's RTE Exemption for Minority Schools Doubted, Sent to CJI

The appeals came from the Bombay and Madras High Courts on whether the TET applies to minority schools and to the promotion of teachers appointed before the RTE Act (paras 1, 3). The Bombay High Court had upheld a 2013 Maharashtra resolution making the TET a pre-condition for teacher appointments, and two minority bodies appealed (paras 5-7). The Madras High Court had required the TET for promotion but held it inapplicable to minority institutions in view of Pramati (paras 21-23). The Union of India challenged a ruling that a teacher in an aided minority school need not have cleared the TET (paras 24-26).

Articles 21A and 30(1) occupy high constitutional positions and must be read harmoniously; there is no inherent conflict between them (para 171). Most RTE Act provisions, such as trained teachers and adequate infrastructure, are regulatory, and a blanket exemption risks making Article 30(1) a tool for evading child-centric standards (paras 172-173). Pramati did not carry its own reasoning to its logical end, since whether a quota affects minority character depends on many factors (para 174). Section 12(1)(c) could be met by admitting disadvantaged children of the minority community itself (paras 180, 182-183). Holding the entire Act inapplicable after examining only Section 12(1)(c) was not reasonable and proportionate (para 187). 'Appointment' in Section 23 covers promotion, and the first proviso to Section 23(2) required serving teachers to acquire the minimum qualifications (paras 194, 199, 201). The TET is a qualification, and there is no real difference between qualification and eligibility (paras 204-206). A two-Judge Bench can only doubt a Constitution Bench view, so it framed four questions for the Chief Justice of India (paras 207, 210).