IMPORTANT POINT
The Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is a mandatory qualification for all candidates seeking appointment as teachers in elementary education, effective from the notification date of 23.08.2010, and cannot be waived for appointments made after this date.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Aklank Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the appellants- petitioners and Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Present Special Appeal has been preferred assailing the validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 12.03.2024 passed in Writ A No. 17951 of 2018 (Ratnesh Kumar and 3 others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 5 others).

3. It appears from the record that “Jwala Prasad Tiwari Junior High School, Bhauti, Kanpur Nagar” [the institution], is a recognised & aided Junior High School. The institution is governed by the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972[Act, 1972]; the rules framed thereunder and the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Junior High School (Payment of Salary to Teachers and other employees) Act, 1978 [Act, 1978]. The District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 25.6.2011 had accorded approval for filling up four vacant posts of Assistant Teacher in the institution. The meeting of Selection Committee, which also consisted the nominee of District Basic Education Officer, was held on 15.12.2011, wherein appointment of petitioners was recommended for approval. Finally, the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 12/13.3.2012 had accorded approval to the petitioners’ appointment. Accordingly, the appointment letters were issued in favour of the petitioners on 13.3.2012 and they joined their services on 17.3.2012.

4. Once the petitioners were not paid their salary then they moved a representation before the respondent authorities on 26.10.2012. Finally, the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 12.07.2018 had rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that they did not possess the Teachers Eligibility Test[TET], which is an essential qualification under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009[Act, 2009]. The petitioners had filed the writ petition for quashing the aforesaid order dated 12.07.2018 and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Single Judge vide impugned judgement and order dated 12.03.2024 has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition with following observations:-

“13. Learned counsel for respondents on the basis of above conclusion submitted that TET was an essential qualification w.e.f. from the date of notification dated 23.8.2010 issued by NCTE and admittedly in present case recruitment process was commenced later on, therefore, it was mandatory that petitioners must possess TET qualification at the time of selection, but admittedly they did not.

14. In Sarvesh Kumar Yadav (supra), co-ordinate Bench of this Court has not referred the above judgment passed by Full Bench though it was prior to it. It appears that it was not brought into the notice of co-ordinate bench, therefore, conclusion of it cannot be relied upon, therefore, in Shiv Kumar Sharma (supra), a Full Bench has categorically held that TET was an essential qualification in any recruitment process commenced after date of relevant notification i.e. 23.8.2010, therefore, no benefit could be granted to petitioners in regard to Clause 5 of subsequent notification issued by NCTE dated 29.7.2011.

15. In the aforesaid circumstances argument of learned Senior Counsel are unsustainable since they are contrary to the decision of Full Bench in Shiv Kumar Sharma (supra).

16. Accordingly, I do not find that petitioners have any legally sustainable claim as well as benefit of subsequent TET Examination could also not be granted.

17. There is no illegality in the impugned order.

18. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.”

5. Learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners in this backdrop submits that the selection of petitioners was held strictly in accordance with the Rules and their selection was also recommended for approval by the Selection Committee, which included the nominee of the District Basic Education Officer. Finally, the District Basic Education Offi