PRATEEK MISHRA AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 5 OTHERS

                                                        AFR
                                                      RESERVED

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                      WRIT - A No. - 14346 of 2026

Prateek Mishra and 2 others
                                                        …..Petitioner(s)

                                Versus

State of Uttar Pradesh and 5 others
                                                      …..Respondent(s)


Counsel for Petitioner(s)         : Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s)         : C.S.C.,    Kushmondeya         Shahi,
                                    Vaibhav Tripathi


Court No. - 52

             HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

1.    Heard Mr. Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. Kushmondeya Shahi, learned counsel for
respondent No.3, Mr. Vaibhav Tripathi, learned counsel for
respondent No.6 and Mr. Sunil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for
the State.
2.    The instant petition has been filed, inter alia, with a prayer for
quashing the Government Order dated 02.9.2026 issued by
respondent no. 1 and the memorandum dated 03.9.2026 issued by
respondent no. 5. A further prayer has been made for issuance of a
writ of mandamus directing the State Government to conduct
regular Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) in accordance with the
notifications and guidelines issued by the National Council for
Teacher Education (NCTE), as amended from time to time.
3.    Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, by the
impugned      Government      Order      dated   02.9.2026   and     the
                                       2
                                                      WRIA No. - 14346 of 2026

consequential advertisement dated 03.9.2026, the State of Uttar
Pradesh has decided to conduct a Special Teacher Eligibility Test
(TET) for in-service teachers and candidates belonging to the
category of Children with Special Needs (CWSN). It is submitted
that the petitioners are concerned only with the requirement relating
to in-service teachers and have no grievance with regard to the
provision made in respect of CWSN candidates.
4.    The proviso to Section 23(2), as inserted by Act No. 24 of
2017, reads as follows:
     “23. Qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of
     service of teachers.
     2. [Provided further that every teacher appointed or in position as
     on the 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 commencement of the Right of Children to Free and
     Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2017].”

5.    A letter dated 3rd August, 2017, issued by the Additional
Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government
of India, reiterated that the last date for acquiring the minimum
qualifications was 1st April, 2019, and that no teacher who did not
possess the prescribed minimum qualifications would be permitted
to continue in service beyond the said date. The aforesaid position
has been noticed in paragraph 69 of the judgment rendered in
Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra and others,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912, which is quoted hereinbelow:
     “69. On 3rd August, 2017, the Additional Secretary, Ministry of
     Human Resource Development, Department of School Education &
     Literacy, issued a letter to the State secretaries, reminding that the
     last date to acquire minimum qualifications is 1st April, 2019, and
     no teacher, who did not possess minimum qualifications under the
                                       3
                                                      WRIA No. - 14346 of 2026

     RTE Act, would be permitted to continue in service beyond the
     given date.”

6.    Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by its order dated
01.09.2025, prescribed a period of two years within which in-
service teachers were required to qualify the Teacher Eligibility Test
(TET). The relevant paragraphs, i.e. paragraphs 216 and 217, are
quoted hereinbelow:
     “216. Bearing in mind their predicament, we invoke our powers
     under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and direct that those
     teachers who have less than five years' service left, as on date, may
     continue in service till they attain the age of superannuation without
     qualifying the TET. However, we make it clear that if any such
     teacher (having less than five years' service left) aspires for
     promotion, he will not be considered eligible without he/she having
     qualified the TET.
     217. Insofar as in-service teachers recruited prior to enactment of
     the RTE Act and having more than 5 years to retire on
     superannuation are concerned, they shall be under an obligation to
     qualify the TET within 2 years from date in order to continue in
     service. If any of such teachers fail to qualify the TET within the
     time that we have allowed, they shall have to quit service. They
     may be compulsorily retired; and paid whatever terminal benefits
     they are entitled to. We add a rider that to qualify for the terminal
     benefits, such teachers must have put in the qualifying period of
     service, in accordance with the rules. If any teacher has not put in
     the qualifying service and there is some deficiency, his/her case may
     be considered by the appropriate department in the Government
     upon superannuation being made by him/her.”

7.    Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the State of Uttar Pradesh
has issued the impugned order providing for the conduct of a
Special Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for in-service teachers. The
object of conducting the Special TET for in-service teachers, as
well as the object of the TET prescribed under the guidelines dated
11.02.2011, is quoted hereinbelow:
                                      4
                                                    WRIA No. - 14346 of 2026



Object of Special T.E.T. conducted Object of T.E.T. as per guideline
by the State of U.P. by impugned dated 11.02.2011.
Notification
शासन द्वारा मा0 उच्चतम न्यायलय द्वारा 3. The rationale for including the
पारित उपर्युक्त आदेश दिनांक 29 मई, TET as a minimum qualification
2026 से बड़ी संख्या में शिक्षकों के प्रभावित for a person to be eligible for
होने के दृष्टिगत प्राथमिक स्तर एवं उच्च appointment as a teacher is as
प्राथमिक स्तर पर कार्यरत शिक्षकों हेतु under:
विशेष अध्यापक शिक्षक पात्रता परीक्षा
(Special TET) आयोजित कराने का i. It would bring national standards
निर्णय लिया गया है।                          and benchmark of teacher quality
                                             in the recruitment process;

                                       ii. It would induce teacher
                                       education institutions and students
                                       from these institutions to further
                                       improve      their     performance
                                       standards;

                                       iii. It would send a positive signal
                                       to all stakeholders that the
                                       Government lays special emphasis
                                       on teacher quality.

                                       4. The TET examination may be
                                       conducted      by    a     suitable
                                       professional body designated by
                                       the appropriate Government for the
                                       purpose. It will be conducted in
                                       accordance with the Guidelines.


8.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Full Bench
of this Court has interpreted the object and purpose of the Teacher
Eligibility Test in paragraph 94 of Anand Kumar Yadav & Ors. v.
Union of India & Ors., reported in 2015 (8) ADJ 338 (Full Bench),
which is quoted hereinbelow:
     “94. The object and purpose of introducing the TET is to ensure
     that a teacher who embarks upon instructing students of primary
     and upper primary classes is duly equipped to fulfil the needs of
     the students, understands the relevance of education for a child at
     that stage and can contribute to the well rounded development of
                                        5
                                                        WRIA No. - 14346 of 2026

     the child. Teaching a child is not merely a matter of providing
     information. Deeply embedded in the process of imparting
     education is sensitivity towards the psyche of the child, the ability
     to understand the concerns of a young student of that age, the
     motivations which encourage learning and the pitfalis which have
     to be avoided. The emphasis on clearing the TET is to ensure the
     maintenance of quality in imparting primary education. These
     requirements which have been laid down by NCTE fulfil an
     important public purpose by ensuring a complement of trained
     teachers who contribute to the learning process of children and
     enhance their growth and development. These requirements should
     not be viewed merely as norms governing the relationship of a
     teacher with the contract of employment. These norms are intended
     to fulfil and protect the needs of those who are taught, namely,
     young children. India can ignore the concerns of its children only
     at the cost of a grave peril to the future of our society. The effort of
     the State Government to by-pass well considered norms which are
     laid down by NCTE must be disapproved by the Court. We have
     done so on the ground that the State Government lacks the
     legislative power and competence to do so. Equally, fundamental is
     the concern that a relaxation of the norms prescribed by an expert
     body will result in grave detriment to the development and growth
     of our young children and the provision of quality education to
     them. Providing quality education is crucial for students belonging
     to every strata of society. Education which is provided in schools
     conducted by the Basic Education Board should not be allowed to
     degenerate into education of poor quality which it will, if the
     norms which are prescribed by an expert body under legislation
     enacted by Parliament in the national interest are allowed to be
     ignored by the State Government on the basis of parochial or
     populist perceptions. Such an attempt is ultra vires the statutory
     powers of the State and is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of
     the Constitution.”

9.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
order is not in consonance with the object and purpose of the
                                        6
                                                       WRIA No. - 14346 of 2026

Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), as contemplated under the
guidelines dated 11.2.2011 issued by the NCTE. It is, therefore,
contended that the impugned notification and advertisement are
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
10.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the NCTE was
designated by the Central Government as the authority under
Section 23(1) of the RTE Act to lay down the minimum
qualifications for appointment as a teacher. It is, therefore,
contended that the State Government has no power to deviate from
the object and purpose of the TET as prescribed and settled by the
NCTE. The aforesaid position has been noticed by the Full Bench
in Anand Kumar Yadav (supra) in paragraphs 66 and 90.
      “66. The Central Government authorised the NCTE as the
      academic authority to lay down the minimum qualifications for a
      person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher by a notification
      dated 31 March 2010 issued in exercise of the powers conferred
      by Section 23 (1) of the RTE Act of 2009. NCTE notified the
      minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher in
      terms of sub-section (1) of Section 23 by its notification on 23
      August 2010 defining eligibility for appointment as a teacher to
      classes I to VIII in a school covered by Section 2(n) of the RTE
      Act of 2009. The minimum qualifications prescribed by NCTE
      envisaged broadly (i) a senior secondary certificate; (ii) a diploma
      in elementary education; and (iii) passing of the TET to be
      conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with
      NCTE guidelines. These were the qualifications prescribed for
      teachers of classes I to V and corresponding qualifications were
      also prescribed in the notification dated 23 August 2010 in relation
      to teachers of classes VI to VIII. Both for teachers of classes I to
      V and for those of classes VI to VIII, NCTE made the passing of
      the TET mandatory. Clause 3 of the notification provided for a
      post- appointment training under an NCTE recognized six month
      special programme in elementary education in the case of two
      categories: the first being for those with a BA/BSc degree and
                                        7
                                                        WRIA No. - 14346 of 2026

      BEd qualification, and the second for those with a BEd (Special
      Education) or DEd (Special Education).
      90. The Full Bench has held that the object of the TET is to ensure
      that a teacher is qualified in the field which he is about to enter.
      Affirming the view which was taken in an earlier judgment of a
      Division Bench, the Full Bench affirmed thepower of NCTE to
      prescribe qualifications and held that after the coming into force
      of the RTE Act of 2009 and the prescription of qualifications by
      NCTE, the State is not a free agent to do as it wills. The failure of
      the State Government to timely implement the qualifications
      which were laid down by NCTE, it was held, would not dilute or
      take away the impact of the notification which was mandatory. In
      view of the Full bench:
      In our opinion, however, merely because the State incorporated
      these provisions in its Rules later on would not take away the
      impact of the norms prescribed by the National Council for
      Teacher Education that stood in force w.e.f. 23.08.2010. The
      delegated legislation of the State Government was subject to the
      primary legislation of the Central Government. The framing of
      Rules as a subordinate legislation is subservient to the provisions
      framed by the Central Government. The notification dated
      23.08.2010, therefore has an overriding effect and it could not
      have been ignored. If the State Government has proceeded to
      make appointments after 23.08.2010 without complying with the
      provisions of teacher eligibility test then such appointments would
      be deficient in such qualification.”

11.    Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is the
constitutional obligation of the State to ensure that educational
institutions maintain high standards of teaching and that the
appointment and continuance of teachers strictly conform to the
prescribed qualifications so as to safeguard the quality of education.
He further submits that Article 21-A was incorporated in the
Constitution with the object of ensuring that children receive proper
and quality education, and, therefore, the quality and competence of
                                        8
                                                       WRIA No. - 14346 of 2026

the teaching staff cannot be compromised in any manner. It is
further submitted that the aforesaid principles have been noticed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 159 and 169 of Anjuman
Ishaat-e- Taleem Trust (supra).
      “159. Quality of teachers and teaching standards are integral to the
      fundamental right to education under Article 21A cannot perhaps
      be doubted. This Court, times without number, has emphasized
      that 'education' would be meaningless if it is not accompanied by
      quality education, which is primarily dependent on qualified and
      well-trained teachers. Further, it is the State's constitutional
      obligation to ensure that educational institutions maintain high
      teaching standards, and appointments of teachers should strictly
      adhere to prescribed qualifications to maintain these educational
      standards.
      169. In exercise of its authority under Section 23(1), the NCTE
      issued a Notification dated 23rd August, 2010, later amended by
      Notification dated 29th July, 2011, laying down that passing the
      TET is a mandatory condition for appointment of teachers in
      classes I to VIII in schools covered by Section 2(n) of the RTE
      Act. The notifications clarify that the TET must be conducted by
      the appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines
      framed by the NCTE. The legal position emerging therefrom is
      clear: the TET is not a mere procedural requirement but forms an
      essential part of the minimum qualification criteria.”

12.    Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, till
31.8.2028, there is no possibility of the State Government or the
Central Government conducting two separate Teacher Eligibility
Test examinations. It is, therefore, contended that, despite there
being sufficient opportunities available to in-service teachers to
appear in and qualify the TET, the State Government, for reasons
best known to it, has chosen to conduct a Special Teacher Eligibility
Test exclusively for in-service teachers.
                                  9
                                               WRIA No. - 14346 of 2026

13.   It is further submitted that the very decision to conduct a
Special TET for in-service teachers gives rise to a reasonable
apprehension that the State Government seeks to dilute the
prescribed standards and criteria of the TET, merely to facilitate the
in-service teachers in completing the procedural requirement of
qualifying the TET. Such dilution, according to learned counsel,
would adversely affect the rights and prospects of the petitioners
and similarly situated candidates seeking appointment as teachers,
as candidates who otherwise do not satisfy the prescribed standards
may, by merely undergoing the Special TET, become eligible for
consideration for appointment.
14.   Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned action
of the respondents is arbitrary and has the effect of adversely
affecting the legitimate right of consideration of the petitioners and
similarly situated candidates for appointment, and consequently
warrants interference by this Court.
15.   Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that strict
adherence to the rule of equality in matters of public employment is
a basic feature of the Constitution. Since the rule of law constitutes
the core of the constitutional scheme, this Court cannot countenance
any action which results in violation of Article 14 or overlooks the
mandatory requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the
Constitution of India.
16.   It is, therefore, submitted that, consistent with the
constitutional   scheme    governing     public    employment,      an
appointment can confer a legally enforceable right upon an
appointee only when it is made in accordance with the applicable
statutory rules and after affording a fair and equal opportunity of
competition to all eligible and qualified candidates. An appointment
made otherwise cannot confer any right upon the appointee contrary
to the constitutional mandate of equality in public employment.
                                        10
                                                         WRIA No. - 14346 of 2026

17.    Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, so far
as the locus of the petitioners is concerned, a similar situation had
arisen in the year 2014 when the State of Uttar Pradesh took a
decision to absorb Shiksha Mitras against the posts of Assistant
Teachers. The said decision was challenged before this Court by
unemployed candidates who possessed the requisite qualifications
for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher.
18.    It is submitted that the prayer made in the petition filed by
such unemployed and qualified candidates has been noticed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and another v.
Anand Kumar Yadav and another, (2018) 13 SCC 560, which reads
as follows:
      “13. Batch of writ petitions was filed before the High Court by
      persons who claimed to be eligible for appointment and whose
      chances were affected by filling up of vacancies of teachers by
      regularising the Shiksha Mitras against the said vacancies, praying
      as under:
      "(a) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing
      the Notifications dated 30-5-2014 issued by the State Government
      notifying the U.P. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
      Education (First Amendment) Rules, 2014 and the U.P. Basic
      Shiksha Adhyapak Seva (19th Sansodhan) Niyamawali, 2014
      (Annexures Nos. 22-A & 22-B);
      (b) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing
      the Government Orders dated 7-2-2013 and 16-6- 2014
      (Annexures Nos. 21 & 23);
      (c) A writ, order or direction of a suitable nature restraining the
      respondents from taking any action on the basis of the impugned
      notifications/Government Orders;
      (d) Any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may
      deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; and
      (e) Award costs of the petition to be paid to the petitioners."
                                        11
                                                        WRIA No. - 14346 of 2026

19.    Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the
petitioners have the necessary locus standi to challenge the
impugned order. It is contended that the question of locus in the
context of a challenge by similarly situated unemployed and
qualified candidates has already been considered by the Full Bench
in Anand Kumar Yadav (supra). The Full Bench, in paragraph 110
of the said judgment, has observed as follows:
      “110. Admittedly, all the petitioners were qualified to apply for
      and be considered for appointment as Assistant Teachers. Their
      right of consideration was clearly affected and is in fact eclipsed
      by the absorption of Shiksha Mitras. It cannot therefore be said
      that the petitioners lacked locus to maintain the writ petitions.”
20.    To sum up, learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged
the impugned Government Order dated 2.9.2026 and the
consequential memorandum dated 3.9.2026 on, inter alia, the
following grounds:
A.     Because the petitioners possess all the qualifications
prescribed by the NCTE for appointment as teachers in primary and
upper-primary schools run under the Basic Education Board and
have also qualified the Teacher Eligibility Test conducted by the
appropriate Government through the body duly authorised for the
said purpose.
B.     Because the State Government, in exercise of the powers
conferred under the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972, has
framed the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules,
1981, which prescribe the procedure for recruitment, qualifications
and other conditions of service of teachers.
C.     Because, in furtherance of the constitutional mandate
contained in Article 21-A of the Constitution of India, Parliament
enacted the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education
Act, 2009, with the object of ensuring access to and maintenance of
quality education.
                                 12
                                               WRIA No. - 14346 of 2026

D.    Because, under Section 23(1) of the RTE Act, 2009, the
Central Government has authorised the NCTE as the academic
authority competent to lay down the minimum qualifications for
appointment as a teacher.
E.    Because, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 23(1)
of the RTE Act, the Central Government has authorised the NCTE
to prescribe the eligibility criteria and guidelines governing the
conduct of the Teacher Eligibility Test, and the NCTE has
accordingly issued guidelines for conducting the TET. There is,
however, no provision in the said statutory framework or the NCTE
guidelines authorising the State Government to introduce a separate
or differently structured Special Teacher Eligibility Test for in-
service teachers.
F.    Because the decision of the Government of Uttar Pradesh to
conduct a Special TET is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India, particularly when teachers appointed after
qualifying the regular TET are already serving in accordance with
the prescribed norms, whereas unemployed and otherwise eligible
candidates, including the petitioners, are awaiting an opportunity to
compete for appointment to the posts of Assistant Teachers.
G.    Because, from a perusal of the impugned Government Order,
it does not appear that the State Government obtained any approval
or concurrence from the NCTE for conducting the proposed Special
TET, notwithstanding the fact that the NCTE is the academic
authority entrusted with the function of prescribing the minimum
qualifications and standards applicable to teachers.
H.    Because the State Government has no authority to curtail,
dilute or otherwise alter the standards prescribed by the competent
academic authority or to independently prescribe a separate
eligibility mechanism for appointment as Assistant Teacher.
Consequently, the decision to conduct a Special TET, insofar as it
                                  13
                                                WRIA No. - 14346 of 2026

departs from the standards prescribed under the applicable statutory
framework, is without authority of law.
I.    Because the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Anjuman Ishaat-e-
Taleem Trust (supra), has emphasised the requirement of qualifying
the Teacher Eligibility Test for teachers covered by the relevant
statutory regime, and the requirement cannot be substituted by any
alternative mechanism devised by the State Government contrary to
the prescribed standards.
J.    Because the grievance of the petitioners is that, by means of
the impugned Government Order, the State Government seeks to
facilitate the continuance in service of in-service teachers who have
not qualified the regular TET by introducing a separate test or
mechanism which, according to the petitioners, would have the
effect of lowering or diluting the standards prescribed for the
regular TET under the NCTE guidelines.
K.    Because the decision of the State Government to conduct a
Special TET, according to the petitioners, infringes Article 16 of the
Constitution, which guarantees equality of opportunity in matters
relating to public employment. It is submitted that in-service
teachers who have not fulfilled the prescribed eligibility
requirements cannot be placed in a position more advantageous than
unemployed candidates who have already qualified the regular TET
and otherwise satisfy the prescribed qualifications for appointment.
The petitioners contend that permitting such candidates to acquire
eligibility through a separate and allegedly diluted process would
adversely affect their legitimate opportunity for consideration for
appointment as Assistant Teachers.
L.    Because the petitioners, who are fully qualified in accordance
with the applicable TET requirements, have not submitted
applications for both Paper-I and Paper-II pursuant to the impugned
Special TET, Paper-I pertaining to the primary level, i.e. Classes I to
                                  14
                                               WRIA No. - 14346 of 2026

V, and Paper-II pertaining to the upper-primary level, i.e. Classes VI
to VIII, as the petitioners contend that participation in the impugned
process would amount to acceptance of the very mechanism which
they have challenged before this Court.
21.   Thus, on the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the impugned Government Order dated
2.9.2026 and the consequential memorandum/advertisement dated
3.9.2026 are arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India and contrary to the statutory scheme, the
object and purpose underlying the Teacher Eligibility Test, the
guidelines issued by the NCTE, and the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to hereinabove.
22.   Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5, Mr. K
Shahi, submits that the present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioners challenging the Government Order dated 2 September
2026, whereby the State Government has granted permission for
conducting a Special Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) for those
teachers who were appointed prior to 23 August 2010.
23.   He submits that the National Council for Teacher Education
(NCTE), by its notification dated 23 August 2010, prescribed the
requisite qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant
Teacher and, for the first time, incorporated the qualification of
passing the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) as one of the essential
qualifications for such appointment.
24.   Learned counsel further submits that, subsequently, by the
amendment introduced in the year 2017 in Section 23(2) of the
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009,
teachers who had already been appointed and were working in
recognised institutions were granted an opportunity to acquire the
prescribed minimum qualifications within a period of five years.
However, despite the statutory provision, no effective proceedings
                                  15
                                               WRIA No. - 14346 of 2026

were initiated for conducting TET for such in-service teachers
within the stipulated period.
25.   It is submitted that the controversy relating to the period
within which such teachers were required to acquire the prescribed
minimum qualification has subsequently been considered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1385 of 2025, Anjuman
Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra, decided on 1
September 2025. By the said order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
extended the period contemplated under Section 23(2) of the Right
of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, from the
original period of five years up to 31 August 2027.
26.   Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned
Government Order dated 2 September 2026 has been issued in the
backdrop of the aforesaid statutory framework and the subsequent
directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and that the State
Government, by permitting a Special TET for teachers appointed
prior to 23 August 2010, has merely provided an opportunity to
such in-service teachers to acquire the requisite qualification within
the extended period.
27.   Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 further submits
that the TET examination was conducted by respondent No.5, the
Commission, on 2, 3 and 4 July 2026 for eligible candidates. In the
said examination, as many as 19,94,661 candidates are stated to
have submitted their applications, and the result thereof was
declared on 26 August 2026. The petitioners have neither
challenged the said examination nor the result declared pursuant
thereto.
28.   It is further submitted that the State Government had
preferred a review petition against the judgment and order passed in
Civil Appeal No.1385 of 2025, Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v.
State of Maharashtra, which was registered as Review Petition
                                  16
                                                WRIA No. - 14346 of 2026

(Civil) No. 53434 of 2025, State of U.P. v. Anjuman Ishrat Taleem
Trust. The said review petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court by order dated 29 May 2026, whereby the period
earlier extended up to 31 August 2027 was further extended up to
31 August 2028.
29.   Learned counsel submits that, in compliance with the
aforesaid order dated 29 May 2026 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the State Government, by Government Order dated 2
September 2026, has decided to conduct a Special TET for in-
service teachers, as contemplated under Section 23(2) of the Right
of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
30.   It is lastly submitted that the petitioners themselves have
categorically stated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that they have
already passed the TET conducted by the appropriate body
authorised by the Government. Consequently, according to learned
counsel, the petitioners have no surviving grievance against the
Government Order dated 2 September 2026 and, therefore, no locus
to challenge the same. The writ petition is accordingly liable to be
dismissed.
31.   Having considered the rival submissions and the material
placed on record, this Court finds that the challenge raised by the
petitioners is founded essentially upon a misconception as to the
nature and effect of the impugned Government Order. The
Government Order does not dispense with the requirement of
Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), nor does it confer upon the in-
service teachers any exemption from the said statutory qualification.
On the contrary, it has been issued to facilitate their acquisition of
the very qualification which, in view of the subsequent declaration
of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in view of NCTE
notification, has become mandatory for teachers covered by the
statutory regime.
                                  17
                                                WRIA No. - 14346 of 2026

32.   The locus standi of the petitioners, therefore, has to be
examined in the context of the injury which they allege. The
petitioners have already qualified TET and are awaiting the
commencement of the recruitment process pursuant to which
vacancies are proposed to be advertised. They consequently possess
the prescribed eligibility qualification and have a legitimate interest
in being considered for appointment in accordance with the
applicable recruitment rules. Nevertheless, mere possession of TET
does not, by itself, confer a vested right to appointment against
future vacancies, particularly before an advertisement is issued and
the selection process is commenced. Equally, the petitioners cannot
claim that the State is constitutionally prohibited from enabling
another class of persons to acquire a qualification which has
subsequently become mandatory merely because the petitioners
have already obtained that qualification.
33.   The true question, therefore, is not whether the petitioners
have locus to maintain the present petition, they undoubtedly have
sufficient legal interest to question an executive action which is
alleged to affect their opportunity of public employment but
whether the impugned Government Order, in its actual operation,
causes any legally cognizable prejudice to them or creates an
unconstitutional preference in favour of the in-service teachers.
34.   The answer, on the facts presently placed before the Court,
must be in the negative.
35.   The controversy stands substantially governed by the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anjuman Ishaat-e-
Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912.
In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in view of NCTE
notification held that qualification of TET is a mandatory eligibility
requirement for the teachers to whom the statutory scheme applies
and that the requirement extends to in-service teachers for
                                  18
                                              WRIA No. - 14346 of 2026

continuation in service and, a fortiori, to promotion. The Court,
exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution,
nevertheless granted a period to the concerned in-service teachers
having more than five years of service remaining to acquire the
qualification, having regard to the consequences which immediate
implementation might have upon the continuity of elementary
education.
36.   The matter thereafter came before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in review, by way of Review Petition (Civil) Diary No.53434 of
2025 filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh. The review jurisdiction
was not exercised so as to dislodge or dilute the substantive
declaration made in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust (supra). On the
contrary, the Court found no error warranting review and reaffirmed
the requirement of TET. The only modification considered
necessary was with regard to the period within which the concerned
in-service teachers were required to acquire the qualification.
Exercising its power under Article 142, the Court extended the
period from two years to three years, directing that the TET
qualification be obtained by 31 August 2028, instead of 31 August
2027. The Court further directed the respective States and
competent authorities to endeavour to conduct TET periodically,
preferably twice a year, so that eligible teachers receive a
reasonable opportunity to comply with the statutory requirement.
The review petitions were accordingly dismissed subject to the
aforesaid limited modification.
37.   The impugned Government Order must, therefore, be
understood in the aforesaid constitutional and statutory setting. The
special TET examination is not an examination designed to confer
an advantage in recruitment upon the in-service teachers. It is an
opportunity afforded to them to acquire the qualification which they
are now required to possess by reason of the law declared by the
                                  19
                                              WRIA No. - 14346 of 2026

Hon’ble Supreme Court. The very foundation of the special
examination is thus compliance with the mandatory requirement of
TET and not relaxation thereof.
38.   The distinction between acquiring a qualification and
receiving preference in appointment is of decisive importance. So
long as the special TET merely enables the concerned in-service
teachers to obtain the prescribed qualification within the period
granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no element of preferential
treatment can be attributed to the impugned Government Order. The
State is not thereby declaring that such teachers shall be appointed
in preference to the petitioners; nor is it reserving vacancies for
them; nor is it granting them additional marks, weightage or
relaxation in the recruitment process. Their acquisition of TET
through the special examination merely brings them within the class
of persons possessing the minimum qualification prescribed for
teachers.
39.   The contention founded upon Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution must also be considered in this light. Article 14
prohibits arbitrary discrimination, while Article 16 guarantees
equality of opportunity in matters relating to public employment.
These constitutional guarantees would undoubtedly be attracted if,
in the eventual recruitment process, the State were to confer upon
persons who qualify through the special TET an unwarranted
preference over candidates who have already qualified TET,
without any statutory or judicial basis for such differentiation. But
no such consequence follows merely from permitting the concerned
in-service teachers one opportunity to acquire TET, that too in
compliance of order of Hon’ble Apex Court.
40.   The petitioners and the concerned in-service teachers may
presently stand at different stages of qualification, but such
distinction does not, in itself, amount to unconstitutional
                                    20
                                                WRIA No. - 14346 of 2026

discrimination. The petitioners have already qualified TET; the
concerned in-service teachers are being afforded an opportunity to
acquire the same qualification because the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has judicially determined that such qualification is mandatory in
view of NCTE notification and has, in exercise of its extraordinary
jurisdiction, granted them a limited period to comply. The object
and purpose of the classification are thus traceable directly to the
statutory requirement and the binding directions of the Apex Court.
41.   Indeed, to strike down the special TET merely on the ground
that the petitioners had already qualified TET would, in substance,
amount    to   questioning    the    implementation    of   the    very
accommodation which the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself has
considered necessary in the interest of continuity of elementary
education. The State cannot be faulted for giving effect to a binding
judicial direction. The review judgment expressly contemplated
periodic conduct of TET so that eligible in-service teachers may
obtain the qualification within the extended period.
42.   It is equally material that the petitioners have not yet acquired
a vested right to appointment. Their assertion that they have
qualified TET and are awaiting advertisement undoubtedly
establishes their eligibility and their legitimate expectation of
consideration in accordance with law; however, until vacancies are
advertised and the selection process is undertaken, no candidate can
claim an indefeasible right to appointment merely by possessing the
prescribed qualification. The State is, therefore, not presently taking
away any accrued right of the petitioners by permitting the
concerned in-service teachers to qualify TET.
43.   Nor does the impugned Government Order alter the position
of the petitioners in any adverse manner. Their TET qualification
remains valid. They remain eligible to compete for appointment
whenever the competent authority initiates recruitment in
                                 21
                                              WRIA No. - 14346 of 2026

accordance with law. The special TET does not render their
qualification ineffective, nor does it impose any additional
qualification upon them, nor does it require them to compete for
appointment on any altered or inferior footing.
44.   The same reasoning applies to persons working as Shiksha
Mitras. Nothing in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Anjuman, or in the review judgment dated 29 May 2026, can be
read as creating, by itself, a vested right in favour of a Shiksha
Mitra to appointment as a regular teacher. The review judgment
concerns the acquisition of the mandatory TET qualification by the
class of in-service teachers covered by the directions of the Apex
Court. It does not, by its own force, create a separate source of
recruitment or confer a preferential right of appointment upon any
category of persons.
45.   It must, however, be made clear that this Court is not
examining at this stage any future selection process which may be
undertaken by the State. If, at the stage of recruitment, the State
were to provide any preferential treatment, relaxation, weightage or
reservation to the beneficiaries of the special TET which is not
authorised by the statutory rules or by the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, such action would necessarily have to withstand
scrutiny under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The present
Government Order, however, cannot be invalidated on the basis of a
possibility of some future action which is neither contained in the
impugned Government order nor shown to have been undertaken.
46.   The constitutional guarantee of equality cannot be invoked to
prevent the State from bringing another class of candidates up to the
prescribed minimum qualification. Equality of opportunity does not
mean that every candidate must forever remain at the same stage of
qualification; it requires that, once the recruitment process is
undertaken, persons similarly situated for the purposes of that
                                  22
                                                WRIA No. - 14346 of 2026

recruitment are dealt with in accordance with law and without
arbitrary preference. The special TET merely enables the concerned
in-service teachers to acquire the threshold qualification; it does
not, by itself, determine their selection or appointment.
47.   Thus, the apprehension expressed by the petitioners that the
conduct of the special TET would, by itself, impair their rights
under Articles 14 and 16 is premature and misconceived. The
special TET is a consequence of the law declared in Anjuman
Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust (supra) and the limited extension granted by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its review. It is intended to provide
the concerned in-service teachers with the opportunity contemplated
by the Apex Court to acquire TET by 31 August 2028. It does not
create any preferential right of appointment or promotion in their
favour.
48.   In these circumstances, this Court finds no ground to hold that
the impugned Government Order, merely because it provides for a
special TET for the concerned in-service teachers, violates Articles
14 or 16 of the Constitution or adversely affects the rights of the
petitioners who have already qualified TET. The petitioners shall
remain entitled to participate in the recruitment process in
accordance with the applicable rules and shall be considered along
with all other candidates who satisfy the prescribed eligibility
conditions. The mere fact that another class is being afforded an
opportunity to acquire the same mandatory qualification pursuant to
the binding directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not,
without more, constitute hostile discrimination or denial of equality
of opportunity.
49.   For the foregoing reasons, the challenge to the impugned
Government Order fails. The special TET contemplated therein is
only a mechanism for enabling the concerned in-service teachers to
comply with the mandatory TET requirement within the period
                                                                   23
                                                                                WRIA No. - 14346 of 2026

                            judicially permitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It neither
                            confers upon them any exemption from TET nor creates any
                            preferential right to appointment or promotion, and consequently
                            does not, at this stage, occasion any prejudice to the petitioners who
                            have already qualified TET.
                            50.         The petition is, accordingly, dismissed, leaving it open to the
                            petitioners to assail any subsequent recruitment action, if and when
                            undertaken, should the same confer a preference or advantage not
                            sanctioned by the statutory rules or the directions of the Hon’ble
                            Supreme Court.




                                                                        (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)

                            October 1, 2026
                            Rahul




Digitally signed by :-
RAHUL GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad