Introduction
Please refer to our earlier post dated 28 October 2021 titled Supreme Court Calls for Systemic Reform in Recruitment of Special Teachers for Children with Disabilities in the above matter.
The Supreme Court, while hearing the continuing proceedings in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., has questioned the legal basis for requiring Teachers' Eligibility Test (TET) qualification for appointment as Special Educators in Bihar. The Court is examining whether TET was actually prescribed in the applicable recruitment rules before it was introduced as an eligibility condition.
The Issue Before the Supreme Court
Can a State require a Special Educator to possess a Teachers' Eligibility Test (TET) qualification when the applicable recruitment rules do not clearly prescribe TET for the post?
This question has acquired considerable importance in the continuing proceedings before the Supreme Court concerning the availability and appointment of Special Educators for children with disabilities.
The proceedings arise against the backdrop of a larger concern: children with disabilities cannot receive meaningful inclusive education unless schools have an adequate number of appropriately qualified Special Educators.
The Court's order dated 28 July 2026 does not finally decide whether TET is mandatory for Special Educators. Instead, it raises an important preliminary question—what is the legal source of the TET requirement in Bihar?
Background
The Supreme Court has been monitoring issues concerning the appointment and availability of Special Educators in different States.
In the Bihar recruitment process, the question arose whether candidates possessing the requisite qualification recognised by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) could nevertheless be excluded because they did not possess TET qualification.
The figures placed before the Court demonstrate the practical consequences.
Out of 7,279 sanctioned posts, 816 posts were stated to be reserved for contractual teachers. Following verification of documents relating to 788 candidates, only 139 candidates were found to possess both RCI and TET qualifications.
The remaining 649 candidates did not possess TET qualification and, consequently, were not recommended for appointment.
This led to a fundamental question: if these candidates possessed the professional qualification prescribed for Special Educators under the RCI framework, could the State nevertheless exclude them on the basis of TET?
The petitioners also relied upon the position taken by the RCI that TET is not an RCI-mandated qualification for Special Educators.
The controversy, therefore, is not merely about one additional examination. It concerns the relationship between:
- professional qualification and registration under the RCI framework;
- general teacher eligibility requirements;
- State-specific recruitment rules; and
- the urgent need for Special Educators in schools serving children with disabilities.
What Did the Supreme Court Ask?
During the hearing, the Bench closely examined the language of the Bihar recruitment rules. Justice Dipankar Datta questioned the basis for treating the relevant TET provision as applicable to Special Educators.
The Court's questioning essentially went to the heart of the matter:
Where, in the applicable recruitment rules, is TET prescribed as a mandatory qualification for Special Educators?
The Bench also examined whether the rule relied upon by the State was actually a provision concerning general school teachers and, if so, whether it could automatically be extended to Special Educators.
This distinction is important. A Special Educator is not simply a general teacher with an additional disability-related role. Special Educators undergo specialised professional education and are regulated within the RCI framework.
Consequently, if the State wishes to impose an additional qualification upon this specialised professional category, there must be a clear legal and regulatory basis for doing so.
RCI Qualification and TET: Two Different Questions
The proceedings also bring into focus an important distinction between professional qualification and eligibility for a particular government recruitment process.
RCI recognition and registration are concerned with professional competence and regulation in rehabilitation and special education.
TET, on the other hand, is a teacher-eligibility mechanism generally associated with school-teaching appointments.
The existence of one qualification does not necessarily answer the question whether another qualification may be prescribed.
At the same time, the fact that TET is not an RCI qualification does not, by itself, mean that a State can never prescribe TET as an additional recruitment requirement.
The crucial question is therefore:
Was TET validly prescribed for the particular post under the applicable recruitment rules?
That is the question the Supreme Court has asked the State of Bihar to address.
Why the Recruitment Rules Matter
Eligibility conditions in public employment cannot ordinarily rest merely upon administrative practice or an assumption that a qualification applicable to one category of employees automatically applies to another.
The recruitment rules governing the post are therefore critical.
The Supreme Court has directed the Bihar Government to clarify whether the relevant rules were amended before the recruitment advertisement was issued so as to make TET mandatory.
This temporal question is also significant.
If a qualification was not prescribed in the governing rules when the recruitment process was initiated, the State would have to explain the legal basis for subsequently treating it as an eligibility condition.
The Court has, therefore, adopted a cautious approach: rather than immediately deciding the validity of the TET requirement, it has asked the State to establish the precise statutory and regulatory foundation of its position.
649 Candidates & Human Consequence of an Eligibility Rule
The numbers placed before the Court illustrate why this is more than a technical recruitment dispute.
Of the 788 candidates whose documents were verified:
- 139 reportedly possessed both RCI and TET qualifications.
- 649 reportedly possessed the relevant RCI qualification but lacked TET and were therefore not recommended.
In other words, a large majority of the candidates considered in this exercise were potentially excluded because of the additional TET requirement.
The consequence extends beyond the candidates themselves. Every unfilled Special Educator position has a potential impact on children with disabilities who depend upon specialised educational support.
A recruitment rule that excludes otherwise professionally qualified Special Educators may therefore have implications for the implementation of the right to education and the right to inclusive education.
Does the Supreme Court Say TET Is Not Required?
No—not yet.
This is an important qualification while reporting the order.
The Supreme Court's 28 July 2026 order is interlocutory. It does not finally hold that TET is not required for Special Educators.
Nor does the order establish a universal rule that every RCI-qualified Special Educator must necessarily be appointed without TET.
Rather, the Court is examining whether Bihar had a lawful basis for imposing TET as an additional qualification in the particular recruitment process.
The Court has accordingly sought an affidavit from the State addressing whether the relevant recruitment rules had been amended before the advertisement was issued.
The distinction is important because the larger proceedings have also considered the possibility of States prescribing TET as an additional qualification. The legal question is therefore not simply whether TET is “good” or “bad” for Special Educators, but whether and how it can lawfully be prescribed.
A Larger Question: Should Special Educators Have a Specialised TET?
The proceedings nevertheless raise a legitimate policy question.
If TET is considered necessary for Special Educators, should the test itself be designed around the competencies required of Special Educators?
A general TET is intended to assess competencies associated with teaching.
Special Education requires additional and distinct professional competencies, including understanding of:
- disability-specific educational needs;
- individualised education and support planning;
- assistive technology;
- alternative and augmentative communication;
- reasonable accommodation;
- universal design for learning;
- accessible teaching-learning materials;
- behavioural and psychosocial support;
- communication with families and caregivers; and
- inclusive classroom practices.
The question, therefore, is not whether quality standards should be maintained. They unquestionably should.
The question is whether a general teacher-eligibility test is the appropriate instrument for assessing the professional competence of a Special Educator.
If an additional national eligibility examination is considered necessary, there is a strong case for ensuring that it is appropriately designed around the actual professional competencies required in special and inclusive education.
Implications Under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
The issue also needs to be viewed against the statutory framework of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).
Section 16 of the Act requires educational institutions to provide inclusive education to children with disabilities and take specified measures to ensure their participation and access to education.
Section 17 further requires governments and local authorities to take measures for facilitating inclusive education.
These statutory obligations cannot be implemented merely by declaring that education is inclusive.
There must be trained human resources to make inclusion work.
Special Educators play a critical role in this ecosystem. Their availability is particularly important for children who require specialised educational interventions, accommodations, communication support, assistive technologies or individualised educational strategies.
Consequently, recruitment policies affecting the availability of Special Educators must also be examined in the context of the State's obligation to ensure meaningful access to inclusive education.
The Supreme Court's Approach: Qualification Must Have a Legal Foundation
One of the most important aspects of the present proceedings is the Court's insistence on identifying the legal source of an eligibility requirement.
It is entirely legitimate for the State to prescribe appropriate qualifications for public employment.
But an eligibility condition must have a legal foundation.
A qualification prescribed for general teachers cannot necessarily be presumed to apply to every specialised category of teaching professionals.
This is particularly relevant where the specialised category is separately regulated through a statutory professional framework.
The Supreme Court's questioning therefore reinforces a basic principle of public recruitment:
Eligibility conditions must flow from the applicable rules and cannot simply be assumed.
What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court has directed the Government of Bihar to file an affidavit clarifying the position concerning RCI registration and TET qualification, including whether the applicable recruitment rules were amended before the recruitment advertisement.
The matter was listed for further consideration on 4 August 2026, along with matters concerning Special Educator appointments in Delhi, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh.
The Court also did not impose a rigid four-week deadline for appointment letters, noting the practical consideration of the frequency of meetings of the State Cabinet.
The ultimate determination could therefore have implications extending beyond Bihar.
Why This Matters
The case sits at the intersection of professional regulation, public employment and the right to inclusive education.
For Special Educators, the outcome may determine whether RCI qualifications are sufficient for particular government appointments or whether States may additionally insist upon TET.
For governments, the case highlights the importance of ensuring that recruitment advertisements faithfully reflect the governing statutory and regulatory framework.
For children with disabilities, however, there is an even more fundamental concern.
A right to inclusive education is meaningful only when the education system has the human resources necessary to deliver it.
If recruitment requirements unnecessarily narrow the pool of professionally qualified Special Educators, vacancies may remain unfilled. Conversely, if additional qualifications are genuinely necessary to ensure quality teaching, they must be appropriately designed and legally prescribed.
The objective should be neither dilution of professional standards nor unnecessary exclusion of qualified professionals.
It should be quality, specialised and accessible education for every child with disability.
What the Supreme Court May Ultimately Clarify
The continuing proceedings have the potential to provide important clarity on several questions:
- Is TET universally applicable to Special Educators, or does its applicability depend upon the recruitment rules governing a particular post?
- Can a State impose TET as an additional qualification where the applicable recruitment rules prescribe RCI qualifications but do not expressly prescribe TET?
- What is the relationship between RCI professional qualifications and State teacher-recruitment qualifications?
- Can a qualification introduced through an advertisement be sustained if it was not prescribed in the governing rules at the relevant time?
- If TET is considered necessary for Special Educators, should there be a specialised test reflecting the competencies of special and inclusive education?
The answers could influence Special Educator recruitment policies across several States.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's order dated 28 July 2026 should therefore be understood as an important judicial inquiry, rather than a final ruling on the necessity of TET for Special Educators.
Its significance lies in the Court's insistence that the State identify the legal basis for an eligibility condition that has resulted in hundreds of RCI-qualified candidates being excluded from consideration.
At the same time, the proceedings raise a broader question about how India regulates and recruits the professionals who make inclusive education possible.
The objective should be to ensure that every child with disability has access to adequately trained, professionally competent and sufficient numbers of Special Educators.
The Supreme Court's eventual decision may help strike that balance—between maintaining professional standards, respecting specialised qualifications and ensuring that recruitment rules do not themselves become a barrier to fulfilling the promise of inclusive education.
For now, the key takeaway is simple: TET cannot be treated as mandatory for Special Educators merely by assumption. Its applicability must be traceable to the governing legal and recruitment framework.
Read the Order
Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 132/2016, order dated 28 July 2026,
Disclaimer: This article discusses an interlocutory order and should not be read as a final determination by the Supreme Court that TET is either universally mandatory or universally unnecessary for Special Educators. The question remains under consideration in the continuing proceedings.
