“Why government must encourage teachers, both private and government to face the TET exam instead of giving them false hope tied to courtroom battles”.
Dr. Ashraf Zainabi
For years, the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) controversy in Jammu and Kashmir has been fought in courtrooms, government offices, and public forums. Teachers hoped for relief, unions sought exemptions, and governments periodically promised legal interventions. Yet every prolonged dispute eventually reaches a point where legal uncertainty gives way to legal clarity. The Supreme Court’s latest ruling appears to have done exactly that.
The judgment leaves little room for ambiguity.Despite the Supreme Court in its 29 May 2026 ruling dismissing over 65 review petitions and reaffirming mandatory TET for in-service teachers, the J&K Government has filed yet another review petition. Given the Court’s clear position and extension of the compliance deadline until August 31, 2028, this fresh legal challenge from J&K is unlikely to provide meaningful relief.
Teachers recruited before the Right to Education Act who have more than five years remaining in service must qualify the TET if they wish to continue in employment. Those who fail to do so by August 31, 2028, face compulsory retirement with admissible terminal benefits. Teachers with less than five years remaining before retirement have been exempted unless they seek promotion. Minority educational institutions continue to enjoy a separate exemption pending further constitutional adjudication. The Court has also recognised CTET as equivalent to state TET qualifications.
In practical terms, the legal battle has reached its destination. The issue before teachers is no longer judicial; it is professional.This reality makes recent political assurances regarding fresh review petitions appear increasingly disconnected from the situation on the ground. Governments are naturally expected to represent the concerns of their employees. There is nothing objectionable about exploring available legal remedies. However, there is a difference between pursuing a remedy and sustaining an illusion.
The danger of repeated promises of legal relief is that they may encourage teachers to postpone preparation in the hope that another court order will eventually remove the requirement altogether. Such expectations may prove costly. Every month spent waiting for a legal miracle is a month lost in academic preparation.
The Supreme Court has not ordered immediate disqualification. On the contrary, it has granted what many would consider a generous window extending until August 2028. The Court appears to have balanced competing interests, protecting educational standards while recognising the practical difficulties faced by serving teachers. The extension itself reflects judicial accommodation. But accommodation should not be mistaken for abandonment of the requirement.
The question that now confronts the government is straightforward. Should public resources be devoted primarily to another round of litigation, or should they be invested in helping teachers qualify?The answer should be obvious.If the government genuinely believes, as the Education Minister has repeatedly asserted, that government-school teachers are among the best educators in the system, then the most logical course is to help them demonstrate that excellence through successful qualification. Confidence in teachers should lead to capacity building, not perpetual courtroom dependence. A serious policy response would involve district-level coaching programmes, online learning platforms, model question banks, refresher courses, academic workshops, and institutional support mechanisms. Such initiatives would produce tangible outcomes.
“The legal battle over the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is over, and the focus must now shift from the courtroom to the classroom. Instead of offering teachers endless legal appeals, the government should actively help them qualify and succeed. Investing in their training and professional confidence is the only way to transform uncertainty into professional growth and prove that claims of having “the best teachers” are backed by demonstrated competence.”
A review petition may or may not succeed. Better preparation will certainly improve success rates. The issue also raises a broader question about professional accountability in public education. Teaching occupies a unique place in society. Every profession evolves. Doctors update their knowledge. Lawyers adapt to new laws. Engineers learn new technologies. Teachers too operate in an environment where educational standards and professional expectations continue to change.
Many teachers understandably argue that decades of classroom experience should count for something. They are correct. Experience matters enormously. No written examination can fully measure dedication, classroom management, student engagement, or community respect. Yet modern educational systems increasingly demand both experience and standardised qualification. The debate is not about replacing experience; it is about complementing it.Indeed, teachers who have successfully served for years should be among the strongest candidates to clear the examination. Their practical exposure gives them an advantage unavailable to fresh graduates entering the profession for the first time.
There is also a public confidence dimension that cannot be ignored. Government schools today operate under intense scrutiny. Parents compare outcomes, enrolment trends, examination results, and teaching quality across institutions. In such an environment, a workforce that successfully meets nationally recognised eligibility standards strengthens the credibility of public education. The symbolism matters. Every teacher who qualifies TET reinforces the message that government schools are staffed by professionals who meet prescribed national benchmarks. That is not merely an individual achievement; it is an institutional one.
The larger lesson from this controversy is that litigation can only take a profession so far. Courts can grant time. Courts can interpret laws. Courts can provide exemptions in exceptional circumstances. But courts cannot substitute preparation, knowledge, and professional development.The extension until August 2028 should therefore be viewed not as a reprieve from responsibility but as an opportunity to fulfil it. Teachers now have time. What they require is support, guidance, and encouragement, not unrealistic expectations that the requirement itself will disappear.
The future of this debate should be written in classrooms, training centres, and examination halls rather than in court petitions. The Supreme Court has effectively settled the legal question. The remaining challenge is educational. And that challenge can be met.
The most empowering message the government can send to teachers today is not, we will continue fighting your case in court. It is, we believe in your ability to qualify, and we will help you succeed. That would transform the TET debate from a story of uncertainty into a story of professional confidence. It would also be the surest way of proving that the government’s repeated claim, that its teachers are among the best, rests not merely on rhetoric, but on demonstrated competence.
(The author is a teacher and a researcher based in Gowhar Pora Chadoora of Central Kashmir’s Budgam district. The views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the author and aren’t necessarily in accord with the views of “Kashmir Horizon”)
