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 approached the Supreme Court seeking a review of its September 1 judgment that mandates in-service teachers from Classes 1 to 8 in non-minority schools across the country to clear the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) within two years, failing which they face compulsory retirement.
Several other States have also expressed concern over the verdict, which imposes a stringent requirement on lakhs of teachers employed validly in government, aided, unaided, and private schools specified 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.
### Situation in Tamil Nadu
Tamil Nadu alone employs approximately 449,850 teachers in government and aided schools, of whom 390,458 are not TET-qualified. The States argue that implementing the Supreme Court’s directive could lead to a collapse of the entire school system, with a mass disqualification of teachers resulting in millions of children being denied classroom instruction.
Tamil Nadu maintains that the judgment creates a direct conflict with Article 21A of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the fundamental right to free and compulsory education for children aged six to 14. The State has requested a balanced approach that ensures education quality while safeguarding children’s right to education.
### What Did the Judgment Mandate?
The two-judge Bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, recognized the ground realities faced by teachers. Justice Datta, who authored the judgment, acknowledged the valuable contributions of teachers appointed before the RTE Act who are not TET-qualified.
The court agreed that removing elementary school teachers abruptly was harsh, especially as many have taught for decades without serious complaints. Therefore, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, it exempted teachers with less than five years remaining until retirement from the TET requirement. However, these teachers must clear the TET if they seek promotion.
Teachers with more than five years of service, however, must mandatorily qualify the TET within two years from the date of the judgment. Failure to do so would result in compulsory retirement or termination with terminal benefits.
Further, the judgment mandates that future appointments or promotions in non-minority schools require TET qualification.
### Minority Institutions and the RTE Act
The Bench also referred to a larger Bench the question of whether minority educational institutions should fall under the purview of the RTE Act. The court noted that the minority status is allegedly being misused by some school managements to circumvent the RTE Act’s mandate to employ TET-qualified teachers for elementary education.
The September 1 judgment critiques a 2014 Constitution Bench judgment in the Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust case, which excluded minority institutions entirely from the RTE Act. It argued that this earlier ruling inadvertently threatens the foundation of universal elementary education.
Highlighting the importance of inclusivity and universality as envisioned by Article 21A, the judgment stressed that exempting minority institutions has fragmented the vision of common schooling.
### Arguments in the Review Petitions
Tamil Nadu and the Kerala-based teachers’ union Deseeya Adhyapakha Parishad (NTU) Kerala have filed review petitions arguing that while improving teaching quality is a legitimate goal, forcing pre-RTE Act appointees to pass the TET under penalty of disqualification is disproportionate.
Tamil Nadu has recommended less intrusive alternatives such as in-service training, capacity-building initiatives, refresher courses, or bridging programs to enhance teaching quality without destabilizing the education system.
### Legal Interpretation of Section 23 of the RTE Act
At the heart of the controversy is the interpretation of Section 23 of the RTE Act. According to Section 23(1), the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) set minimum qualifications—including passing the TET—for appointment as teachers in Classes 1 to 8 through a notification dated August 23, 2010.
The rationale behind the TET is to establish national standards and ensure teacher quality in recruitment processes. However, Tamil Nadu’s review petition contends that Section 23(1) applies only to future recruitments.
The State cites Section 23(2), which allows the Centre to relax minimum qualifications temporarily (for up to five years) in cases of teacher shortages or other contingencies.
Additionally, a proviso to Section 23 mandates that teachers not meeting minimum qualifications at the commencement of the RTE Act must acquire them within five years.
Tamil Nadu argues that Section 23 does not impose a blanket mandate for TET qualification nor does it retrospectively disqualify teachers validly appointed before these minimum qualifications were notified.
The State warns that the September 1 judgment risks leading to empty classrooms and teachers preoccupied with safeguarding their employment rather than focusing on educating children.
—
*Tamil Nadu’s petition highlights the need to carefully balance the goal of teacher quality with the practical realities of education delivery, urging the Supreme Court to reconsider the judgment to prevent disruption in the schooling system.*
https://www.thehindu.com/education/why-is-a-spectre-of-empty-classrooms-looming-explained/article70125871.ece
You may also like
Leave a Reply