HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Km. Dimple Singh and others – Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and others – Respondents
Writ - A No. - 17615 of 2025, Writ - A No. - 18573 of 2025
Decided On : 12-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners' eligibility and initial appointments. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. impugned circular requiring specific experience. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. arguments against experience requirements. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. state's defense of experience requirements. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. interpretation of 'teaching experience' in statutory rules. (Para 34 , 36 , 37 , 39) |
| 6. judgment on qualifications and experience. (Para 48 , 49) |
| 7. court's conclusion and dismissal of writ petition. (Para 53 , 54) |
JUDGMENT :
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
1. Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned Chief Standing Counsel has filed Short Counter Affidavit, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not propose to file rejoinder affidavitto the said short counter affidavit.
2. There are thirteen petitioners in Writ-A No. 17615 of 2025 and three petitioners in Writ-A No. 18573 of 2025. Controversy involved in both the writ petitions is similar, hence, they are being decided bythis common judgement.
3. The petitioners have approached this court with a prayer to quash the prescribed format of the experience certificate, contained in Appendix-3 to the Circular dated 03.11.2025, insofar as it insists upon experience as Assistant Teacher/ Headmaster, and further to treat the petitioners as fully eligible in terms of notification dated 04.12.2019 permitting them to participate in the remaining process of selection.
4. Placing the facts of the case, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Parliament enacted the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009[The RTE Act, 2009 ](Parliamentary Act No. 35 of 2009), making provisions for free and compulsory education for all children up to the age of 14 years. For the implementation of the said Act, a Government Order dated 31.01.2013 was issued. Pursuant thereto, the District Basic Education Officers of the concerned districts published an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment as Part Time Instructors. Being eligible for the said posts, the petitioners applied and were appointed as part-time Instructors in view of the Schedule-1(b)(3)(ii) of Section 19 of the Act of 2009, wherein part-time instructors for teaching Art Education, Health and Physical Education and Work Education were to be appointed for teaching Classes 6 to 8 in schools having more than 100 students.
5. The details of initial appointment of the petitioners in Writ-A No. 17615 of 2025, as part-time instructors, are: petitioner nos. 1 and 8 were granted appointment in District Sultanpur, petitioner no. 02 in District Bhadohi, petitioner nos. 3 and 4 in District Basti, petitioner no. 5 in District Varanasi, petitioner no. 6 in District Muzaffarnagar, petitioner no. 7 in District Barabanki, petitioner no. 9 in District Kaushambi, petitioner no. 10 in District Kushinagar, petitioner no. 11 in District Meerut, petitioner no. 12 in District Jaunpur and petitionerno. 13 was offered appointment in District Saharanpur. The appointment letters were issued to them on different dates in the months of June, July and September, 2013, pursuant to which the petitioners joined their respective places of postings. The petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 8 were appointed in the subject of Work Education, while others (petitioner nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13) were granted appointment in Art Education.
6. The petitioners in Writ-A No. 18573 of 2025 were granted appointment in the subject of Art Education. Appointment letters to petitioner nos. 1 & 2 were issued on 23.02.2013 and order of appointment was issued to petitioner no. 3 on 25.02.2013.
7. As the appointment of the petitioners was in accordance with the stipulations contained in the Government Order dated 31.01.2013 for a period of 11 months, annual extension was granted to each of them and accordingly extension orders in respect to each petitioner were issued for every year succeeding 2013-14. S
P.M. Latha and another v. State of Kerala and others
Yogesh Kumar and others v. Government of NCT Delhi and others
P. Mahendran and others v. State of Karnataka and others
Chairman, LIC and others v. A. Masilamani
State of Rajasthan v. Kunji Raman
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others
Teaching experience for appointment as Headmaster must be from recognized regular teaching positions, not from part-time or non-cadre roles, adhering strictly to statutory qualifications.
Point of law: Teacher – Appointment - Respondents are estopped, having allowed the petitioner all throughout in the stages of process, treating her to be eligible and offering appointment, to contend....
The absence of a specific requirement for a headmistress to pass the TET under the 1978 Rules, and the non-retrospective application of the TET requirement to invalidate the respondent's prior appoin....
Eligibility for the appointment of a principal must be assessed as of the vacancy date, and subsequent qualifications can establish entitlement to the position.
The court clarified that for teacher promotions under Rule 14, five years of continuous service is required, but it does not need to be in the subject of the promoted post.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case, the principles of natural justice, and the consequences of a previous....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.