State of U.P. v. Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust & Ors.
Background
In an earlier judgment, Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra (2025), the Supreme Court had held that in-service teachers recruited before the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 must qualify the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to continue in service or seek promotion, giving those with more than five years left to retire a two-year window (until 31 August 2027) to clear it. Over 65 review petitions were filed by various States, teachers' associations, and individual teachers, arguing this interpretation of the RTE Act was erroneous and would displace large numbers of teachers, and seeking an open-court review hearing, which the Court granted.
Decision Breakdown
The Court reiterated the narrow scope of review jurisdiction: a review is not an appeal in disguise and is available only for an error apparent on the face of the record, not merely because a party is dissatisfied with the outcome. It found no such error in the original Anjuman judgment's interpretation that TET qualification is mandatory for in-service teachers, holding that the RTE Act is child-centric legislation and teachers' service interests cannot override children's educational welfare. However, taking a pragmatic view of the practical disruption a rigid two-year deadline could cause to school functioning and continuity of education, the Court exercised its Article 142 powers to grant limited relief: it extended the TET compliance deadline from two years to three years (from 31 August 2027 to 31 August 2028), directed authorities to conduct the TET more frequently (preferably twice a year), and made clear no further extension would be entertained. Subject to this modification, all the review petitions were dismissed.
Lesson Learnt
A review petition succeeds only on a genuine error apparent on the record, not on relitigating the merits, but even while dismissing a review, the Supreme Court can use its Article 142 powers to soften the practical impact of its own earlier ruling when large-scale hardship is shown, without disturbing the core legal principle.