Back
Holds Special TET For In-Service Teachers Not Violative of ,16
In a significant decision, the has dismissed a petition challenging the 's decision to conduct a Special Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) exclusively for in-service teachers. Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held that the special examination is merely a compliance mechanism to implement the 's directives and does not confer any unconstitutional preference, thereby upholding its validity under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The petitioners, Prateek Mishra and two others — who had already qualified the regular TET — argued that the Special TET would dilite prescribed standards and give in-service teachers an unwarrented advantage in future recruitment, violating the . They contened that the () is the sole authourity to prescribe qualifications, and the State cannot deviate from the guidelines.
Rejecting these submissions, the Court drew a crucial distinction: the Special TET merely enables in-service teachers to acquire the mandatory qualification that the , in An juman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Mah arashtra () SC C OnLine SC 1912), declared compulsory for their continuance. The Court observed that the State has not reserved vacancies, granted weightage, or given any preference to these teachers over other canidates.
" The distinction between acquiring a qualification and receiving preference in appointment is of decisive importance. So long as the special TET merely enables the concerned in-service teachers to obtain the prescribed qualification within the period granted by the Hon'ble , no element of preferential treatment can be attributed to the , " the bench noted.
The High Court emphasised that the petitioners have no to appointment merely by possessing the TET qualification, and their chances are not prejudiced. The judgement clarified that if in a future recruitment process any unwarranted preference is granted, it can be challenged separately.
" The constitutional guarantee of equality cannot be invoked to prevent the State from bringing another class of candidates up to the prescribed minimum qualification. Equality of opportunity does not mean that every candidate must forever remain at the same stage of qualification, " the Court added.
Dismissing the , the Court left the door open for the petitioners to assail any subsequent recruitment action that confers an advantage not sanctioned by or the 's directions.
