High Court · 2025

and Sri Manvendra Dixit, learned Standing Counsel for State.

2. The petitioner has participated in the recruitment process for filling of 5 post of Assistant Teacher in respondent institution. A due process was followed. She was appointed and papers were forwarded by Committee of Management of school to District Inspector of Schools for approval.

3. The matter for approval was considered by Regional Level Committee, however, vide order dated 19.11.2014, approval was rejected on a ground that petitioner was not qualified for post of Assistant Teacher and selection was also cancelled since she does not possess TET certificate as required for teaching the classes I to V . The relevant part of impugned order is reproduced hereinafter :- “शासनादेश संख्या - 2308/15-12-2012-1608(8)/ 2012 टी०सी० दिदनांक – 08.04.2013 में यह व्यवस्था दी गयी है दिक " ……… शासनादेश संख्या - 15 (स) / 15-12-2012 दिदनांक 25.05.2012 ्ቛारा ्ቚदेश के अशासकीय सहायता ्ቚा्቎ माध्यदिमक दिव्ቕालयों से सम्ब्ቍ ्ቚइमरी ्ቚभाग में रिर्ሹ अध्यापकों के पदों पर भत- हेतु शासन ्ቛारा कतितपय शत0 व ्ቚतितबन्धों के आधार पर परी्ቌण कर अनुमतित देने के सम्बन्ध में जि7ला दिव्ቕालय दिनरी्ቌकों को दिनद9श दिदये गये हैं तत््ቅम में शासन ्ቛारा सम्यक दिवचारोपरान्त अशासकीय सहायता ्ቚा्቎ माध्यदिमक दिव्ቕालयों से सम्ब्ቍ ्ቚाइमरी ्ቚभाग के शिश्ቌकों की सेवा शत0 के सम्बन्ध में दिनयमावली - 2012 ्ቚख्यादिपत होने तक के लिलये माध्यदिमक दिव्ቕालयों से सम्ब्ቍ ्ቚाइमरी अनुभाग में अध्यापक के रूप में दिनयुदि्ሹ हेतु न्यूनतम अहBता दिनम्नवत् दिनधाBरिरत दिकये 7ाने का दिनणBय लिलया गया हैः- शिश्ቌक के पद पर चयन दिनयुदि्ሹ हेतु ऐसे अभ्यथ- पा्ቔ होंगे 7ो भारत में दिवतिध ्ቛारा स्थादिपत दिव्ቫदिव्ቕालय से स्नातक की उपातिध रखते हो तथा बी०टी०सी०/बी०एड० ्ቚशिश्ቌण सफलता पूवBक उ्ቈीणB दिकये हो एवं उ०्ቚ० सरकार अथवा भारत सरकार ्ቛारा आयोजि7त क्ቌा - 1 से क्ቌा - 5 हेतु अध्यापक पा्ቔता परी्ቌा सफलता पूवBक उ्ቈीणB दिकया हो।" अतः मण्डलीय सदिमतित सवB सम्मतित से यह दिनणBय लिलया दिक सु्ቦी रानी कनौजि7या पु्ቔी ्ቦी कैलाश कनौजि7या उ्ሹ शासनादेश में दिनदिहत शैति्ቌक आहBता TET ्ቚाथदिमक उ्ቈीणB न होने के कारण उ्ሹ चयन अमान्य एवं दिनरस्त दिकया 7ाता है।”

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per the Regulation framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, passing of U.P. TET Examination is not an essential eligibility qualification and in order to follow Government Order dated

08.04.2013, requisite amendments are required in the said Act but the same are not carried out.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that petitioner has qualified higher grade of TET, required for teaching Classes VI to VIII and since she has higher qualification, therefore, her selection cannot be cancelled as she can teach classes I to V. Learned counsel in support of his submission, refers judgment passed by Supreme Court in Chandra Shekhar Singh and Others Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others, (Civil Appeal No.10389 of 2024, decided on

20.03.2025).

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for State refers the guidelines dated 11.02.2011, issue by National Council for Teachers Education framed under the Right of Children to Free 2 of 6 and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE, Act) for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test and refers paragraph 7 of it. For reference the same is reproduced hereinafter :- “7. There will be two papers of the TET. Paper I will be for a person who intends to be a teacher for classes I to V. Paper II will be for a person who intends to be a teacher for classes VI to VIII. A person who intends to be a teacher either for classes I to V or for classes VI to VIII will have to appear in both papers (Paper I and Paper II). Paper I(forclassesItoV);No.ofMCQs –150; Duration of examination:one-and-a half hours Structure and Content (All Compulsory) (i) Child Development and Pedagogy 30 MCQs 30 Marks (ii) Language I (iii) Language II (iv) Mathematics (v) Environmental Studies 30 “ 30 “ 30 “ 30 “ 30 “ 30 “ 30 “ 30 “ Nature and standard of questions While designing and preparing the questions for Paper I, the examining body shall take the following factors into consideration: • The test items on Child Development and Pedagogy will focus on educational psychology of teaching and learning relevant to the age group of 6-11 years. They will focus on understanding the characteristics and needs of diverse learners, interaction with learners and the attributes and qualities of a good facilitator of learning. • The Test items for Language I will focus on the proficiencies related to the medium of instruction, (as chosen from list of prescribed language options in the application form). • The Language II will be from among the prescribed options other than Language I. A candidate may choose any one language from the available language options and will be required to specify the same in the application form. The test items in Language II will also focus on the elements of language, communication and comprehension abilities. Paper II (for classes VI to VIII); No. of MCQs – 150; Duration of examination : one-and-a-half hours Structure and Content (i) Child Development & Pedagogy (Compulsory) 30 MCQs 30 Marks (ii) Language I (compulsory) 30 “ 30 “ 3 of 6 (iii) Language II (compulsory) 30 “ 30 “ (iv) (a) For Mathematics and Science teacher : Mathematics and Science – 60 MCQs of 1 mark each (b) For Social studies teacher : Social Studies – 60 MCQs of 1 mark (c) For any other teacher – either 4(a) or 4(b) While designing and preparing the questions for Paper II, the examining body shall take the following factors into consideration: • The test items on Child Development and Pedagogy will focus on educational psychology of teaching and learning, relevant to the age group 11-14 years. They will focus on understanding the characteristics, needs and psychology of diverse learners, interaction with learners and the attributes and qualities of a good facilitator of learning. • The test items for Language I will focus on the proficiency related to the medium of instruction, as chosen from list of prescribed options in the application form. • The Language II will be a language other than Language I. The person may choose any one language from among the available options and as in the specified list in the application form and attempt questions in the one indicated by the candidate in the application form by him. The Test items in Language II will also focus on the elements of language, communication and comprehension abilities. • The test items in Mathematics and Science, and Social Studies will focus on the concepts, problem solving abilities and pedagogical understanding of these subjects. The test items of Mathematics and Science will be of 5 30 marks each. The test items shall be evenly distributed over different divisions of the syllabus of that subject as prescribed for classes VI-VIII by the appropriate government. • The questions in the tests for Paper II will be based on the topics of the prescribed syllabus of the State for classes VI-VIII but their difficulty standard as well as linkages could be upto the senior secondary stage.

7. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that petitioner admittedly has not passed Paper I which was required to become a teacher for class 1 to 5 and she has passed only Paper II, however, that would be for purpose of teaching for class 6 to 8. At this stage, it may be noted that during pendency of this writ petition, petitioner has passed Paper I also. 4 of 6

8. Learned Standing Counsel for State further submits that aforesaid guidelines were issued under Section 23 of RTE Act, 2009 and for that there is no requirement to amend the Intermediate Education Act and, therefore, TET in terms of above structure is a mandatory qualification.

9. I have heard counsel for parties and perused the record.

10. In terms of RTE Act, 2009, under Section 23, the aforesaid referred guidelines for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test were issued on 11.02.2011 which requires that TET would be an essential eligibility test for becoming Assistant Teacher and as referred above, structure and contents of TET was also defined that it would consist of two papers, Paper I for a person who intends to be a teacher for classes 1 to 5 and Paper II for a person who intends to be a teacher for classes 6 to 8. Admittedly, petitioner has not passed Paper I at the time of consideration, therefore, she was not qualified to be selected for Assistant Teacher to impart education to classes 1 to 5.

11. The Court takes note of paragraph 29 of Devesh Sharma Vs. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 985 cited by learned Standing Counsel for State and for reference the same is mentioned hereinafter :- “29. The academic authority, which is NCTE considered the appointment of trained and qualified teachers as an absolute necessity in primary schools. It is for this reason that the qualification which was prescribed for a teacher in primary school was a Diploma in Elementary Education (DElEd), and not any other educational qualification, including BEd. Apart from this the teachers eligibility test or TET would further test the skills of a candidate to handle students at primary level” 5 of 6

12. In the said judgment, mandatory eligibility of TET was not diluted even an attempt to impose another qualification by Rajasthan Government was rejected, therefore, the Court is of the view that petitioner must possess TET (Level 1) in terms of aforesaid guidelines dated 2011 in order to become a teacher for classes I to V.

13. Admittedly, in present case, petitioner has not qualified Paper I at the stage of consideration, therefore, there is no factual error in impugned order. The subsequent circumstances, that petitioner has passed later on Paper I also would not made the impugned order illegal. An attempt made by counsel for petitioner that since he has higher qualification i.e. Level 2 of TET, therefore, he may be considered to be qualified Level 1 also but the Court is not convinced since the structure and contents of TET as described in guidelines dated 11.02.2011 has specifically made differentiation among Paper I and Paper II, therefore, the said argument of counsel for petitioner is rejected as well as the judgment cited by petitioner would not be helpful in given set of circumstances.

14. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court is of the view that there is no illegality in impugned order and accordingly, present writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 11.04.2025 Pushpendra Pandey [SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.] 6 of 6 PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

and Sri Manvendra Dixit, learned Standing Counsel for State.

2. The petitioner has participated in the recruitment process for filling of 5 post of Assistant Teacher in respondent institution. A due process was followed. She was appointed and papers were forwarded by Committee of Management of school to District Inspector of Schools for approval.

3. The matter for approval was considered by Regional Level Committee, however, vide order dated 19.11.2014, approval was rejected on a ground that petitioner was not qualified for post of Assistant Teacher and selection was also cancelled since she does not possess TET certificate as required for teaching the classes I to V . The relevant part of impugned order is reproduced hereinafter :- “शासनादेश संख्या - 2308/15-12-2012-1608(8)/ 2012 टी०सी० दिदनांक – 08.04.2013 में यह व्यवस्था दी गयी है दिक " ……… शासनादेश संख्या - 15 (स) / 15-12-2012 दिदनांक 25.05.2012 ्ቛारा ्ቚदेश के अशासकीय सहायता ्ቚा्቎ माध्यदिमक दिव्ቕालयों से सम्ब्ቍ ्ቚइमरी ्ቚभाग में रिर्ሹ अध्यापकों के पदों पर भत- हेतु शासन ्ቛारा कतितपय शत0 व ्ቚतितबन्धों के आधार पर परी्ቌण कर अनुमतित देने के सम्बन्ध में जि7ला दिव्ቕालय दिनरी्ቌकों को दिनद9श दिदये गये हैं तत््ቅम में शासन ्ቛारा सम्यक दिवचारोपरान्त अशासकीय सहायता ्ቚा्቎ माध्यदिमक दिव्ቕालयों से सम्ब्ቍ ्ቚाइमरी ्ቚभाग के शिश्ቌकों की सेवा शत0 के सम्बन्ध में दिनयमावली - 2012 ्ቚख्यादिपत होने तक के लिलये माध्यदिमक दिव्ቕालयों से सम्ब्ቍ ्ቚाइमरी अनुभाग में अध्यापक के रूप में दिनयुदि्ሹ हेतु न्यूनतम अहBता दिनम्नवत् दिनधाBरिरत दिकये 7ाने का दिनणBय लिलया गया हैः- शिश्ቌक के पद पर चयन दिनयुदि्ሹ हेतु ऐसे अभ्यथ- पा्ቔ होंगे 7ो भारत में दिवतिध ्ቛारा स्थादिपत दिव्ቫदिव्ቕालय से स्नातक की उपातिध रखते हो तथा बी०टी०सी०/बी०एड० ्ቚशिश्ቌण सफलता पूवBक उ्ቈीणB दिकये हो एवं उ०्ቚ० सरकार अथवा भारत सरकार ्ቛारा आयोजि7त क्ቌा - 1 से क्ቌा - 5 हेतु अध्यापक पा्ቔता परी्ቌा सफलता पूवBक उ्ቈीणB दिकया हो।" अतः मण्डलीय सदिमतित सवB सम्मतित से यह दिनणBय लिलया दिक सु्ቦी रानी कनौजि7या पु्ቔी ्ቦी कैलाश कनौजि7या उ्ሹ शासनादेश में दिनदिहत शैति्ቌक आहBता TET ्ቚाथदिमक उ्ቈीणB न होने के कारण उ्ሹ चयन अमान्य एवं दिनरस्त दिकया 7ाता है।”

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per the Regulation framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, passing of U.P. TET Examination is not an essential eligibility qualification and in order to follow Government Order dated

08.04.2013, requisite amendments are required in the said Act but the same are not carried out.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that petitioner has qualified higher grade of TET, required for teaching Classes VI to VIII and since she has higher qualification, therefore, her selection cannot be cancelled as she can teach classes I to V. Learned counsel in support of his submission, refers judgment passed by Supreme Court in Chandra Shekhar Singh and Others Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others, (Civil Appeal No.10389 of 2024, decided on

20.03.2025).

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for State refers the guidelines dated 11.02.2011, issue by National Council for Teachers Education framed under the Right of Children to Free 2 of 6 and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE, Act) for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test and refers paragraph 7 of it. For reference the same is reproduced hereinafter :- “7. There will be two papers of the TET. Paper I will be for a person who intends to be a teacher for classes I to V. Paper II will be for a person who intends to be a teacher for classes VI to VIII. A person who intends to be a teacher either for classes I to V or for classes VI to VIII will have to appear in both papers (Paper I and Paper II). Paper I(forclassesItoV);No.ofMCQs –150; Duration of examination:one-and-a half hours Structure and Content (All Compulsory) (i) Child Development and Pedagogy 30 MCQs 30 Marks (ii) Language I (iii) Language II (iv) Mathematics (v) Environmental Studies 30 “ 30 “ 30 “ 30 “ 30 “ 30 “ 30 “ 30 “ Nature and standard of questions While designing and preparing the questions for Paper I, the examining body shall take the following factors into consideration: • The test items on Child Development and Pedagogy will focus on educational psychology of teaching and learning relevant to the age group of 6-11 years. They will focus on understanding the characteristics and needs of diverse learners, interaction with learners and the attributes and qualities of a good facilitator of learning. • The Test items for Language I will focus on the proficiencies related to the medium of instruction, (as chosen from list of prescribed language options in the application form). • The Language II will be from among the prescribed options other than Language I. A candidate may choose any one language from the available language options and will be required to specify the same in the application form. The test items in Language II will also focus on the elements of language, communication and comprehension abilities. Paper II (for classes VI to VIII); No. of MCQs – 150; Duration of examination : one-and-a-half hours Structure and Content (i) Child Development & Pedagogy (Compulsory) 30 MCQs 30 Marks (ii) Language I (compulsory) 30 “ 30 “ 3 of 6 (iii) Language II (compulsory) 30 “ 30 “ (iv) (a) For Mathematics and Science teacher : Mathematics and Science – 60 MCQs of 1 mark each (b) For Social studies teacher : Social Studies – 60 MCQs of 1 mark (c) For any other teacher – either 4(a) or 4(b) While designing and preparing the questions for Paper II, the examining body shall take the following factors into consideration: • The test items on Child Development and Pedagogy will focus on educational psychology of teaching and learning, relevant to the age group 11-14 years. They will focus on understanding the characteristics, needs and psychology of diverse learners, interaction with learners and the attributes and qualities of a good facilitator of learning. • The test items for Language I will focus on the proficiency related to the medium of instruction, as chosen from list of prescribed options in the application form. • The Language II will be a language other than Language I. The person may choose any one language from among the available options and as in the specified list in the application form and attempt questions in the one indicated by the candidate in the application form by him. The Test items in Language II will also focus on the elements of language, communication and comprehension abilities. • The test items in Mathematics and Science, and Social Studies will focus on the concepts, problem solving abilities and pedagogical understanding of these subjects. The test items of Mathematics and Science will be of 5 30 marks each. The test items shall be evenly distributed over different divisions of the syllabus of that subject as prescribed for classes VI-VIII by the appropriate government. • The questions in the tests for Paper II will be based on the topics of the prescribed syllabus of the State for classes VI-VIII but their difficulty standard as well as linkages could be upto the senior secondary stage.

7. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that petitioner admittedly has not passed Paper I which was required to become a teacher for class 1 to 5 and she has passed only Paper II, however, that would be for purpose of teaching for class 6 to 8. At this stage, it may be noted that during pendency of this writ petition, petitioner has passed Paper I also. 4 of 6

8. Learned Standing Counsel for State further submits that aforesaid guidelines were issued under Section 23 of RTE Act, 2009 and for that there is no requirement to amend the Intermediate Education Act and, therefore, TET in terms of above structure is a mandatory qualification.

9. I have heard counsel for parties and perused the record.

10. In terms of RTE Act, 2009, under Section 23, the aforesaid referred guidelines for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test were issued on 11.02.2011 which requires that TET would be an essential eligibility test for becoming Assistant Teacher and as referred above, structure and contents of TET was also defined that it would consist of two papers, Paper I for a person who intends to be a teacher for classes 1 to 5 and Paper II for a person who intends to be a teacher for classes 6 to 8. Admittedly, petitioner has not passed Paper I at the time of consideration, therefore, she was not qualified to be selected for Assistant Teacher to impart education to classes 1 to 5.

11. The Court takes note of paragraph 29 of Devesh Sharma Vs. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 985 cited by learned Standing Counsel for State and for reference the same is mentioned hereinafter :- “29. The academic authority, which is NCTE considered the appointment of trained and qualified teachers as an absolute necessity in primary schools. It is for this reason that the qualification which was prescribed for a teacher in primary school was a Diploma in Elementary Education (DElEd), and not any other educational qualification, including BEd. Apart from this the teachers eligibility test or TET would further test the skills of a candidate to handle students at primary level” 5 of 6

12. In the said judgment, mandatory eligibility of TET was not diluted even an attempt to impose another qualification by Rajasthan Government was rejected, therefore, the Court is of the view that petitioner must possess TET (Level 1) in terms of aforesaid guidelines dated 2011 in order to become a teacher for classes I to V.

13. Admittedly, in present case, petitioner has not qualified Paper I at the stage of consideration, therefore, there is no factual error in impugned order. The subsequent circumstances, that petitioner has passed later on Paper I also would not made the impugned order illegal. An attempt made by counsel for petitioner that since he has higher qualification i.e. Level 2 of TET, therefore, he may be considered to be qualified Level 1 also but the Court is not convinced since the structure and contents of TET as described in guidelines dated 11.02.2011 has specifically made differentiation among Paper I and Paper II, therefore, the said argument of counsel for petitioner is rejected as well as the judgment cited by petitioner would not be helpful in given set of circumstances.

14. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court is of the view that there is no illegality in impugned order and accordingly, present writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 11.04.2025 Pushpendra Pandey [SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.] 6 of 6 PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad