SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(All) 3675

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent: C.S.C

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.

Headnote:(A) Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Section 19; Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 - Amendment on 04.12.2019 - Experience requirement for appointment as Headmaster - Circular dated 03.11.2025 stipulating experience as Assistant Teacher held invalid as it exceeds original eligibility criteria and imposes additional restriction not supported by law - Petitioners' claim rejected for lack of requisite experience as per statutory provisions. (Paras 3, 10, 14, 43-54)

(B) Legal Principle of Recruitment - Prescribed qualifications and experience cannot be relaxed on equitable grounds; experience must strictly conform to qualifications specified in statutory rules. (Paras 38, 40, 41)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, part-time instructors appointed under the RTE Act, challenged a circular mandating experience as Assistant Teacher for Headmaster selection, asserting their eligibility based on prior experience.

Findings of Court:
The court found that teaching experience for Headmaster as per Rule 4 must be acquired from regular teaching positions and ruled the circular improper.

Issues: Whether experience as a part-time instructor can be equated to the requirement for an Assistant Teacher for appointment as Headmaster?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that teaching experience must be from recognized posts within the statutory framework, and part-time status does not meet the requirements.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

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













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top