Allahabad High Court
AKHILESH AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that Rule 8, by omitting the mandatory TET qualification for Assistant Teachers of classes VI‑VIII, is ultra vires and must be amended to include the TET (pass) requirement.
Summary
The petitioners challenged Rule 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules, 1983 (as amended) on the ground that it failed to require a pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for appointment of Assistant Teachers to classes VI‑VIII, contrary to the NCTE notification of 23 August 2010 and Section 23(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. They relied on data showing 904 institutions in the state teach classes VI‑XII, implying that teachers without TET qualification are being employed. The State argued that the rules had been amended in 2016 and 2025 following a 2014 NCTE notification applicable only to teachers for classes IX‑X, and that the recruitment advertisement of 28 July 2025 pertained solely to those classes. The Court examined the submissions, noted the omission of the TET requirement for classes VI‑VIII, and held that Rule 8 was defective and ultra vires. It directed insertion of the TET qualification into Rule 8 and ordered the NCTE to issue a corrigendum clarifying that the advertisement relates to recruitment for classes IX‑X. The writ petitions were allowed in part and disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether Rule 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules, 1983, as amended, is ultra vires of Section 23(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the NCTE notification of 23 August 2010.
- Whether the recruitment advertisement dated 28 July 2025 violates the qualification requirements prescribed by NCTE for teachers of classes VI‑VIII.
- Whether the amendments made to the service rules in 2016 and 2025 sufficiently incorporate the TET qualification for all relevant teaching posts.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Teacher Eligibility Test
- NCTE
- Right to Education
- Service Rules
- Ultra Vires
- Recruitment
- Public Service Commission
- Uttar Pradesh
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
WRIT - A No. - 11604 of 2025
Akhilesh And 3 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Taniya Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., M.N. Singh, Vaibhav Tripathi
Along with:
WRIT - A No. - 18038 of 2025
Jayhind Yadav And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Siddharth Khare,
Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, C.S.C.,
Mahendra Narain Singh
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.
(Per: Arindam Sinha,J.)
1. Two writ petitions have been taken up for hearing. In Writ - A
no.11604 of 2025 prayer is for quashing rule 8 of Uttar Pradesh
Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules, 1983
as amended by 6th amendment dated 30th January, 2025 insofar as the
same is in contravention of National Council for Teacher Education
(NCTE) notification dated 23rd August, 2010. Petitioners say the
notification mandates passing of Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for
appointment to post of Assistant Teacher, to teach classes VI to VIII.
WRIA No. 11604 of 2025
2
Prayer in Writ - A no.18038 of 2025 carries similar prayer inasmuch as,
allegedly offending rule 8 is sought to be declared ultravires and
consequent quashing of advertisement dated 28th July, 2025 issued by
Public Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh for recruitment under the
rules. Ms. Taniya Pandey, learned advocate appears on behalf of
petitioners in Writ -A no.11064 of 2025 and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav,
learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners in the other writ
petition.
2. Ms. Pandey submits, by notification dated 31st March, 2010 published
by authority in Gazette of India Extraordinary on 5th April, 2010, NCTE
was conferred power under sub-section (1) in section 23 of Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, to be authorized
as the academic authority to lay down minimum qualification(s) for a
person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher. We obtained
confirmation from respondents that the Act applies to teachers to teach
upto class VIII.
3. Ms. Pandey submits further, pursuant to this authorization there was
notification dated 23rd August, 2010 issued by the authority, mandating
eligibility criteria of possessing, apart from other qualification(s) TET
(pass). She demonstrates from allegedly offending rule 8 that inspite of
the amendment made thereto subsequent to the Act and notification, it did
not include the mandated qualification TET (pass) for purpose of the
recruitment. She submits upon reliance on statement made in paragraph 8
of supplementary counter affidavit affirmed by the Additional Director of
Education that there are 904 institutions, where students in classes VI to
XII are being taught. The paragraph is reproduced below.
"8. That at this juncture, it may also be stated that in the State
of U.P. there are 1488 government high schools where only
classes IX and X are taught. Further, there are 70 intermediate
colleges where only classes IX to XII are being taught, and
there are only 904 institutions where classes VI to XII are
being taught."
(emphasis supplied)
WRIA No. 11604 of 2025
3
She submits, there has been no recruitment pursuant to the notification. In
the circumstances, existence of 904 institutions, where classes VI to XII
are being taught necessarily means that Assistant Teachers, who do not
have qualification of TET (pass) are also teaching classes VI to VIII. The
rule is thus ultravires section 23 in Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009, by omission. She seeks interference.
4. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav adopts submissions made by Ms. Pandey and
adds, the Defence forces have incorporated the requirement for recruiting
teachers to their institutions. Learned advocate for petitioners pray for
direction on quashing the advertisement.
5. Mr. Kartikeya Saran, learned advocate, Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr. Saurabh, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appear on
behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3. They are State through the education
department. Mr. Saran submits, there was notification dated 12th
November, 2014 issued by NCTE, mandating educational qualifications
for recruitment of teachers to classes IX and X. Consequent thereto, two
amendments were made to the rules. First was in year 2016, to insert
additional requirement of bachelor degree and BEd or equivalent thereto
and second was more in nature of clarification in year 2025, inserting
inclusive term 'graduation degree'. The amended rules have been relied
upon for issuance of aforesaid recruitment notice dated 28th July, 2025.
He submits he has clear instructions that there has been no recruitment
under the rules for teachers to teach classes VI to VIII. He points out from
counter affidavit dated 9th December, 2025, there stands disclosed order
dated 28th February, 2017 made by coordinate Bench. Relevant text of
the order is reproduced below.
"The prayer made in the writ petition reads thus:
"a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari
quashing the impugned advertisement dated 21.12.2016
advertising total 9342 posts of Trained Graduate Teacher/L.T.
Grade Teacher to be appointed in Government Inter Colleges
for teaching the students from Class 6th to 10th without
prescribing Teacher Eligibility Test as essential qualification."
WRIA No. 11604 of 2025
4
The petition is filed on the assumption that the advertisement
has been issued for appointing 9342 Trained Graduate
Teachers/L.T. Grade Teachers for classes 6 to 10. Counsel
appearing for respondents 1 to 3, on instructions, submits that
the impugned advertisement and the posts of Trained
Graduate Teachers/L.T. Grade Teachers are for classes 9 and
10, and not for classes 6 to 8th standard. His statement is
recorded and accepted. In view thereof, counsel for the
petitioner does not press this writ petition."
(emphasis supplied)
Thereby is demonstration that the rule under challenge was duly amended
pursuant to the year 2014 notification issued by NCTE, in respect of
recruitment of teachers for classes IX and X. He opposes the writ
petitions.
6. Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned advocate appears on behalf of
respondent no.5 (the Commission) in one writ petition and respondent
no.4 in the other. He submits, the recruitment notice was issued by his
client for recruitment of trained graduate teachers (TGT). On query he
submits, there is no indication in the advertisement regarding classes to be
taught by the teachers recruited. Mr. Vaibhav Tripathi, learned advocate
appears on behalf of NCTE. He submits, his client was duly empowered
to mandate qualifications on recruitment of the teachers. By notification
dated 23rd August, 2010 requisite qualifications for recruitment of
teachers appointed to teach upto classes VIII were notified. By
subsequent notification dated 12th Novermber, 2014, same was notified
in respect of teachers who are to be recruited to teach classes IX and X.
7. On specific query, we have not been shown by respondents that there
has been recruitment or at least initiated by a recruitment notice, pursuant
to the requisite qualification mandated by NCTE on notification dated
23rd August, 2010. It follows, respondents cannot say that no vacancy has
arisen in post of teachers to teach classes VI to VIII, particularly when
there is admission on affidavit made by the Additional Director of
Education that there exists 904 institutions where students study from
WRIA No. 11604 of 2025
5
classes VI to XII. As such, petitioners have demonstrated the omission,
more so because the recruitment notice dated 28th July, 2025 does not
specify the recruitment necessity of the recruited, in respect of classes to
be taught. We find there is a gap in rule 8. On query Mr. Saran submits,
upon direction made, State will have to propose amendment. Thus we do
direct that there be insertion in rule 8, as requisite qualification in addition
to those mentioned, TET (pass). We direct the Commission to issue
corrigendum clarifying that the advertisement relates to recruitment of
teachers for class IX and X. For the purpose, the State will issue
necessary instructions.
9. The writ petitions are allowed to above extent and disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha,J.)
(Prashant Kumar,J.)
April 2, 2026
Anupam S/-
Digitally signed by :-
ANUPAM SINGH PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…