The concept of Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) originates from Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). Section 23(1) authorizes the Central Government to designate an academic authority to lay down minimum qualifications for teachers teaching. Pursuant to this provision, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) was notified as the academic authority, and on 23 August 2010 it issued a statutory notification making Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) a mandatory component of minimum qualification for appointment of teachers for Classes I–VIII "nomenclature in rest of India and central statutory terminology (Classes I–VIII),Not to J&K’s historical cadre structure" From that date(23/Aug/2010) onwards across India, minimum qualification meant not only academic and professional training qualifications (such as Graduation with B.Ed. or 10 2 with D.El.Ed.) but also passing TET conducted by the competent authority of government.

However, the constitutional and legal position of Jammu and Kashmir was distinct until 05 August 2019. Under Article 370 of the Constitution of India (prior to its abrogation), central laws did not automatically apply to J&K unless specifically extended through Presidential Orders with concurrence of the State Government. As a result, although the RTE Act came into force in the rest of India in 2010, it was not automatically or fully operational in J&K in the same manner. Recruitment of teachers in J&K during this period was governed by the Jammu and Kashmir Education Subordinate Service Recruitment Rules and other state-specific service regulations. Importantly, recruitment notifications issued between 2010 and 5 August 2019 for General Line Teachers, Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) teachers, SSA teachers, and other categories generally did not include TET as an essential qualification. There was also no historically structured “elementary cadre” in the strict RTE sense; teachers were appointed under unified state service rules without formal statutory separation between elementary and other cadres as seen in some other states.
This constitutional distinction has major legal implications. Where recruitment notifications and service rules did not incorporate TET as an eligibility condition, and appointments were made lawfully under the then-prevailing state rules, such appointments carry strong legal protection. Service jurisprudence consistently holds that eligibility conditions are governed by recruitment rules in force at the time of advertisement and appointment. A qualification not prescribed in the recruitment rules cannot ordinarily be imposed retrospectively unless the statute clearly mandates retrospective application.
The legal landscape changed significantly after 5 August 2019 with the enactment of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019. Following reorganisation, the Constitution of India and all central laws became fully applicable to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Consequently, the RTE Act, 2009, and NCTE notifications, including the 23 August 2010 notification mandating TET, became fully operational within the UT framework. From this point onward, statutory alignment with national standards became legally obligatory.
During this period, the recruitment of teachers in Jammu and Kashmir was governed exclusively by state-specific statutory instruments, most notably the Jammu and Kashmir Education Subordinate Service Recruitment Rules, alongside other executive instructions issued by competent authorities. Significantly, recruitment notifications published between 23 August 2010 and 5 August 2019—and in certain cases extending up to 31 January 2026—did not uniformly or mandatorily prescribe the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) as an essential eligibility condition. In previous recruitments conducted by the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board (JKSSB), particularly between 2015 and 2019, eligibility criteria did not explicitly require TET; instead, selection was based primarily on written examinations and academic qualifications, with the B.Ed. degree often assigned weightage rather than being enforced as a strict prerequisite. Candidates were appointed on the basis of academic and professional qualifications recognized under the then-prevailing state rules—such as Graduation with B.Ed., 10 2 with D.El.Ed., or other equivalent qualifications—without the additional requirement of passing TET.
However, a significant development within the recruitment framework of Jammu and Kashmir occurred in 2015, when the State Government revised the minimum academic qualification for the post of Teacher from 10 2 to Graduation. This change was formally introduced through amendments to the Jammu and Kashmir Education Subordinate Service Recruitment Rules. In contrast to earlier recruitment practices in the region, it is pertinent to note that only the Union Territory of Ladakh has explicitly mentioned TET as a mandatory eligibility condition for Teacher posts in its 2025 recruitment notification issued by the Ladakh Subordinate Services Staff Selection Board.“Pass in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET/CTET) as applicable under NCTE norms” within the essential qualification criteria for Teacher recruitment"
Even after 2019, however, practical implementation required incorporation into recruitment rules and administrative notifications. If recruitment advertisements issued post-reorganisation did not expressly mandate TET, and appointments were made by competent authorities without that condition, affected teachers may rely on established legal doctrines such as legitimate expectation, promissory estoppel, and the principle that employees should not suffer for administrative lapses of the employer. Courts in service matters generally distinguish between illegal appointments (where basic eligibility was absent or fraud occurred) and irregular appointments arising from governmental failure to incorporate statutory norms in recruitment rules. In long-serving cases where appointments were made through due process, confirmed, and continued for years, courts often extend equitable protection rather than ordering mass termination.
It is important to note that under the RTE Act framework, TET is characterized as part of “minimum qualification for appointment.” The statutory language primarily governs eligibility at the stage of recruitment rather than creating an automatic ground for removal of already appointed teachers. Therefore, the key legal question in J&K cases is whether, at the time of appointment, TET was a prescribed condition in applicable recruitment rules. For appointments made prior to 5 August 2019, especially where RTE was not fully extended and recruitment rules did not require TET, the legal protection is comparatively stronger. For appointments made after reorganization, the position becomes more complex and depends on whether recruitment notifications aligned with NCTE norms.
In recent administrative developments, although denied by government, the UT administration has moved towards structured implementation of TET through designated authorities such as JKBOSE or relevant educational bodies. Where implementation is undertaken prospectively, it is legally sustainable. However, if applied retrospectively to invalidate long-standing appointments made under earlier rules, such action would likely be subject to judicial scrutiny on grounds of arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution, violation of settled service conditions, and absence of employee fault.
The legal position regarding TET in Jammu and Kashmir must be understood in three phases, 1. the 2010 national mandate under the RTE Act and NCTE notification; 2. the pre-2019 special constitutional status of J&K where central laws did not automatically apply and recruitment rules did not uniformly mandate TET, and 3. the post-2019 reorganisation phase where central laws fully apply and alignment with NCTE norms is legally expected. Teachers appointed in accordance with valid recruitment notifications that did not prescribe TET possess substantial legal grounds to defend their service, particularly where appointments pre-date full statutory integration or wheregovernment delay caused non-implementation.
It is my considered view that the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) may be made a mandatory condition for promotion within the School Education Department. Such a policy could serve a dual purpose: first, it would uphold academic and professional standards in line with national norms; and second, it would address prevailing apprehensions and legal uncertainties in a structured and prospective manner. By linking TET to promotional advancement rather than retrospectively questioning existing appointments, the administration may reconcile statutory objectives with service protections, thereby ensuring both quality assurance and legal fairness.

Email:-----------------rayeesulislam7@gmail.com