IMPORTANT POINT
Appointment as Assistant Teachers – Services cannot be terminated where appointees are having required minimum educational qualification.

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, CJI

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal challenges the judgment and final order dated 1st May 2024 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad [Hereinafter, “High Court”], whereby the intracourt [Special Appeal No. 441 of 224] appeal filed by the appellants herein was dismissed and the judgment and order dated 12th March 2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court, dismissing the Writ Petition [Writ – A No. – 17951 of 2018] filed by the appellants, was affirmed.

3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under.

3.1. By a notification dated 23rd August 2010, the National Council for Teacher Education, [Hereinafter, “NCTE”] in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, [Hereinafter, “RTE Act”] laid down minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in Class I to VIII in a “school” referred to in clause (n) of Section 2 of the RTE Act, with effect from the date of the notification. It can be seen that the requirement to pass the Teacher Eligibility Test, [Hereinafter, “TET”] to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose, was added as a minimum qualification.

3.2. On 25th June 2011, the management of one Jwala Prasad Tiwari Junior High School, Bhauti, Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, [Hereinafter, “JPT Junior High School”] which is a recognized and aided junior high school, initiated proceedings to fill four posts of Assistant Teachers in JPT Junior High School with the permission of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Kanpur Nagar District [Hereinafter, “BSA”].

3.3. An advertisement for the aforesaid four posts of Assistant Teachers was issued on 3rd July 2011 and the last date for submission of applications was 16th July 2011. The appellants herein applied for the same.

3.4. On 13th November 2011, TET examination was held for the first time in the State of Uttar Pradesh and on 25th November 2011, appellant No. 2 cleared the TET.

3.5. On 13th March 2012, the BSA approved the selection of the appellants by way of an appointment letter. As a result, the appellants joined the post of Assistant Teacher on 17th March 2012.

3.6. On 24th May 2014, appellant No. 1 also cleared the TET.

3.7. By way of an amendment dated 9th August 2017 to Section 23 of the RTE Act, it was provided that every teacher, appointed or in position as on 31st March 2015, who does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1) shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of four years from the date of the said amendment.

3.8. On 12th July 2018, the services of the appellants were terminated by the BSA on the ground that they did not have TET qualification at the time of their appointment.

3.9. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants along with two others filed a Writ Petition before the High Court inter-alia seeking quashing of the aforesaid order/communication passed by the BSA.

3.10. Vide judgment and final order dated 12th March 2024, a learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

3.11. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioners before the High Court filed an intra-court appeal and the same was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court vide impugned judgement and final order dated 1st May 2024.

3.12. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and final order, two of the writ petitioners before the High Court have filed the present appeal by way of special leave.

4. We have heard Shri Amit Anand Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Shri Ankit Goel, learned counsel for the respondent-State.

5. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellants that the first TET was conducted by the respondent-State on 13th November 2011 and the appellants passed the same in 2011 and 2014. It is further submitted that since the appe