As per case facts, a batch of review petitions, initially over 65, challenged a previous Supreme Court judgment which mandated that in-service teachers recruited prior to the RTE Act's enactment ... and having substantial service remaining, must qualify the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) within a specified initial period. Petitioners argued this decision misinterpreted the RTE Act, causing significant injustice by retrospectively imposing new conditions and potentially displacing many. The question arose whether the requirement of qualifying the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for in-service teachers, as mandated by the RTE Act and upheld previously, constituted an erroneous retrospective application of the law, an illegal change in service conditions, or if the initial compliance period was insufficient, potentially displacing many teachers. Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed the objections to its earlier order, affirming that the RTE Act's provisions and amendments are not retrospective in a way that invalidates past appointments but rather provide a time-bound mechanism for existing teachers to acquire minimum qualifications for maintaining educational standards. While reiterating TET's mandatory nature and dismissing claims of erroneous interpretation, the Court, invoking Article 142 powers, pragmatically extended the deadline for in-service teachers to acquire TET from an initial two years to three years, and directed states to conduct TET periodically.