High Court · 2025

Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Petitioners were appointed as PTA teacher in different Government aided Intermediate Colleges within District Udham Singh Nagar; petitioner No. 1 was so appointed as Assistant Teacher (Mathematics) in Janta Inter College, Rudrapur w.e.f. 01.07.2011, while petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Sanskrit) w.e.f. 10.04.2015 in Rana Pratap Inter College, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar.

3. Appointment of both petitioners as PTA teacher was approved of Chief Education Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, vide order dated 30.08.2018 for payment of honorarium from public exchequer in terms of G.O. dated

21.12.2016. Since honorarium from State exchequer was not paid to petitioners, therefore they earlier filed Writ Petition No. 93 of 2020 (SS). The said writ petition was decided by this Court vide order dated 28.06.2022. Relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced below: “Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Chief Education Officer, Udham Singh Nagar had granted approval for grant of honorarium to petitioners, vide order dated 30.08.2018, however, the said order was subsequently cancelled. A counter affidavit has been filed. The stand taken by respondent nos. 2 & 3 is that petitioners are not qualified to be appointed as L.T. Grade Teacher, as they did not qualify TET-II qualification, which is necessary for appointment as Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, submits that as per recruitment rules, applicable to the post of L.T. Grade Teacher, essential qualification needed for appointment on the said post was Bachelor’s degree with B.Ed. degree and there was no requirement of qualifying TET-II. He further submits that the qualification of passing TET-II examination was added in the recruitment rules vide notification dated 19.02.2014. Thus, he submits that anyone, who was appointed as PTA Teacher before 19.02.2014, cannot be treated as unqualified merely because he did not possess TET-II qualification. He further submits that petitioner no. 1 & 4 have qualified TET-II in the year 2019. This Court finds substance in the submission made on behalf of petitioners. Since eligibility for appointment to a post is to be determined with reference to the recruitment rules. If the recruitment rules as were in vogue before 19.02.2014 did not provide that for appointment as L.T. Grade Teacher, one must have TET-II qualification, then those petitioners, who were appointed before 19.02.2014, cannot be non-suited for grant of honorarium only on the ground that they did not possess TET-II qualification. Since this is the only ground for refusing honorarium to petitioners and admittedly some of the petitioners were appointed before amendment of recruitment rules, i.e. 19.02.2014, therefore, writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) (ii) Petitioners shall submit all relevant documents with separate representation the Director, Secondary Education, within two weeks. Director, shall call comments from the Chief Education Officer and Committee of Management of the concerned schools, within two weeks thereafter. (iii) Director shall consider the claim of the petitioners for honorarium, having regard to their eligibility as per Government Policy. He shall also examine as to whether petitioners were eligible for appointment as per the Service Rules, in vogue at the time of their appointment. Final order shall be passed by Director within ten weeks.” the matter was (iv) Pursuant judgment, to said

4. reconsidered by the Director and the Director, vide order dated 01.10.2022 again held that both petitioners are not eligible for honorarium from State exchequer.

5. The reason assigned by Director was that (i) petitioners had not qualified TET (Teachers Eligibility Test), at the time they were appointed as PTA teacher and (ii) petitioners were appointed as PTA teacher without following prescribed procedure.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that State Government had not prescribed any procedure for holding selection for appointment as PTA teacher and the practice adopted everywhere in the State was that the Committee of Management pastes a notice on the notice board whereby applications for appointment as PTA teacher are invited and the same procedure was followed while appointing both the petitioners.

7. Learned State Counsel, although supported the reason assigned by Director by contending that procedure prescribed was not followed; however, he could not show any Government Order whereby procedure for holding selection was prescribed.

8. Admittedly, requirement of passing TET (Teachers Eligibility Test) was introduced by National Council for Teachers Education for the first time vide Notification dated 19.02.2014. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as PTA teacher much earlier on 01.07.2011, therefore, requirement of passing TET cannot be made applicable retrospectively in respect of petitioner No. 1.

9. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State although submitted that such PTA teachers who were appointed before 19.02.2014 were given deadline for qualifying TET as a condition for payment of honorarium from State exchequer. However, he could not produce any statutory provision or G.O. in support of this contention.

10. Thus, the reason assigned by Director, School Education for rejecting claim of petitioner No. 1 for grant of honorarium is unsustainable in the eyes of law, as he possessed all requisite qualifications needed for regular appointment as Assistant Teacher (L.T. Maths) on the date of his appointment as PTA teacher.

11. Since petitioner No. 2 was appointed as PTA teacher in 2015 and by that time, requirement of passing TET was introduced by National Council for Teachers Education, therefore, rejection of claim of petitioner No. 2 for honorarium from State exchequer cannot be interfered with.

12. The writ petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms with a direction to Chief Education Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, to pass necessary orders for honorarium in favour of petitioner No. 1 from due date, within six weeks from date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

01.12.2025 (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Mahinder/