Shillong, Oct 6: The Meghalaya Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Schools Association (MSSASA) on Monday unanimously decided to file a review petition before the Supreme Court, challenging its September 1 ruling that mandates all in-service teachers to clear the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to continue in service.
At a general meeting held at Malki Ground, MSSASA president Aristotle Rymbai said legal experts had advised the association to contest the retrospective application of the judgment, which affects even long-serving teachers nearing retirement.
“This decision will have serious consequences on the future of many teachers. We have agreed to move collectively,” Rymbai said.
On September 1, the Supreme Court, in the Anjuman vs Maharashtra case, ruled that all teachers – including those already in service – must clear the TET within two years. Teachers who fail to qualify would have to resign, though those with less than five years of service left are exempted, albeit without promotion benefits.
Rymbai explained that the apex court’s judgment was based on the 2010 National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) notification and the 2017 amendments to the Right to Education (RTE) Act.
He recalled that, in Meghalaya, the Education Department had earlier exempted teachers appointed before August 23, 2010, from the state TET (MTET). However, the recent verdict has overridden that exemption, bringing all in-service teachers under the TET requirement.
The teachers have a supporter in Education Minister Lahkmen Rymbui, who had said last month that the judgment was “baffling” and would have far-reaching consequences on Meghalaya’s teachers. There are 43,102 teachers in the state, according to Education Department figures and Rymbui said that 10,000 to 15,000 could be affected by the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Rymbai also clarified that the Central TET (CTET) and Meghalaya TET (MTET) are equivalent and teachers who have cleared CTET need not appear for the state-level test again.
The MSSASA president said the state government is currently reviewing the implications of the Supreme Court order and hoped for a resolution that protects the interests of long-serving teachers. (with PTI inputs)
