TET: A Question of Fairness and Dignity
Tawheed Parvaiz
The teacher has always been regarded as the architect of society, the one who shapes young minds, nurtures values, and builds the intellectual foundation of the nation. Yet, in recent times, the teaching fraternity finds itself repeatedly subjected to new rules, fresh directives, and evolving conditions that often raise questions not about competence, but about dignity and fairness.
The recent decision to require teachers in Jammu and Kashmir to qualify the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) again has caused deep unrest, particularly among those who entered the department after clearing the rigorous selection process of the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board (SSB).
This concern becomes even more pronounced when we speak specifically about the 2014 and 2019 batches of teachers. These teachers did not enter the department casually; they were selected after successfully qualifying a competitive written examination followed by a formal interview process. Their recruitment was not provisional or informal it was structured, merit-based, and officially validated.
The 2014 batch of teachers, who qualified the SSB examination and interview, entered the department with full legitimacy and confidence that their merit had been duly assessed.
Similarly, the 2019 batch of teachers also underwent the same rigorous process of written examination. These 2014 and 2019 batch teachers began their professional journeys with the belief that they had fulfilled all necessary eligibility requirements laid down by the recruitment authority.
Today, when these same 2014 and 2019 batch teachers are being asked to again prove their eligibility through TET, it naturally raises a fundamental question: if they were fully qualified to be appointed through SSB examination and interview, why is their competence being reassessed now?
The issue is not about capability; rather, it is about consistency and respect for due process. The 2014 batch teachers and the 2019 batch teachers have already demonstrated their merit through competitive selection. To subject them once more to a qualifying examination creates a perception that their earlier selection process is being indirectly questioned.
It is important to repeatedly emphasize that the 2014 and 2019 batch teachers are not opposed to professional development or quality enhancement. They fully understand the need for maintaining high educational standards. However, they feel that being re-examined after successfully clearing the SSB examination and interview undermines the credibility of the very recruitment system that selected them. The 2014 batch teachers have already spent more than a decade serving students with dedication, while the 2019 batch teachers have been actively contributing to classrooms with energy and commitment. Both batches have proven their capability not only in examinations but in real teaching environments.
Moreover, the expectation that the 2014 and 2019 batch teachers should again prepare for TET while simultaneously managing classrooms, administrative duties, family responsibilities, and social obligations places an additional psychological and professional burden on them. These teachers are not fresh aspirants preparing for their first recruitment; they are already serving educators who entered the department through a lawful and merit-based process.
If we speak of uniform national standards, then policy implementation must also be uniform and rational. The 2014 and 2019 batch teachers fulfilled all eligibility norms applicable at the time of their recruitment. Altering these norms retrospectively creates uncertainty and may discourage future aspirants who trust the credibility of recruitment boards. When a teacher qualifies the SSB examination and interview, joins service, and dedicates years to teaching, that qualification should retain its validity and respect.
The issue, therefore, is not a rejection of evaluation but a plea for justice and dignity. The 2014 and 2019 batch teachers represent a generation of educators who trusted the system, cleared a transparent recruitment process, and entered the department with pride. Requiring them to once again prove their eligibility risks demoralizing those who have already been working diligently in classrooms across the region.
Educational reforms are indeed necessary for strengthening quality, but reforms must also acknowledge the legitimacy of past recruitment processes. The government must carefully reconsider policies affecting the 2014 and 2019 batch teachers, ensuring that reforms enhance standards without diminishing the respect owed to those who have already proven their merit through SSB examination and interview.
Ultimately, the strength of an education system depends on the confidence and morale of its teachers. Safeguarding the dignity of the 2014 and 2019 batch teachers is not merely about protecting a group of employees, it is about upholding the integrity of the recruitment system and preserving the trust that teachers place in it when they dedicate their lives to nation-building.
(The author is a teacher)
