The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to amend Rule 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules, 1983, to include the requirement of passing the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for teachers teaching classes VI to VIII. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Prashant Kumar, found a “gap” in the existing rules that failed to align with the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) mandates.
Background
The court was hearing two writ petitions (Writ-A No. 11604 of 2025 and Writ-A No. 18038 of 2025). The petitioners challenged Rule 8 of the 1983 Service Rules, as amended by the 6th amendment dated January 30, 2025. They argued that the rule was in contravention of the NCTE notification dated August 23, 2010, which mandates passing the TET for appointment as an Assistant Teacher to teach classes VI to VIII.
The petitioners also sought the quashing of an advertisement dated July 28, 2025, issued by the Public Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh, for recruitment under the allegedly offending rules.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners’ Submission: Ms. Taniya Pandey and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that under Section 23(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the NCTE was authorized as the academic authority to lay down minimum qualifications. They demonstrated that while the NCTE issued a notification on August 23, 2010, mandating TET (pass) for teaching up to class VIII, the state’s Rule 8 failed to include this qualification despite subsequent amendments.
The petitioners highlighted that according to a supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the Additional Director of Education, there are 904 institutions in the state where classes VI to XII are taught. They argued that Assistant Teachers without TET qualifications are currently teaching classes VI to VIII in these institutions, making the rule “ultravires section 23 in Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, by omission.”
State’s Response: Mr. Kartikeya Saran, Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, argued that a separate NCTE notification dated November 12, 2014, mandated qualifications for classes IX and X. He contended that the amendments made to the rules in 2016 and 2025 were aimed at recruitment for these higher classes.
He relied on a 2017 coordinate Bench order which recorded the State’s submission that certain advertisements for “Trained Graduate Teachers/L.T. Grade Teachers” were specifically for classes IX and X, and not for classes VI to VIII.
Commission’s Stand: Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, representing the Public Service Commission, admitted upon court query that the recruitment notice dated July 28, 2025, “does not specify the recruitment necessity of the recruited, in respect of classes to be taught.”
Court’s Analysis
The Court noted that the respondents failed to show any recruitment or notice initiated pursuant to the NCTE’s 2010 notification for classes VI to VIII.
The Bench observed:
“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 classes VI to XII.”
The Court found that because the recruitment notice of July 2025 remained silent on the specific classes to be taught, and because students in 904 institutions start from class VI, the omission of TET as a qualification was evident.
Decision
The Court concluded that there is a “gap in rule 8” and issued the following directions:
- Rule Amendment: The State is directed to insert “TET (pass)” as a requisite qualification in Rule 8, in addition to existing qualifications, for teachers intended to teach classes VI to VIII.
- Clarification of Advertisement: The Public Service Commission is directed to issue a corrigendum clarifying that the advertisement dated July 28, 2025, relates exclusively to the recruitment of teachers for classes IX and X.
- State Instructions: The State shall issue necessary instructions to the Commission to facilitate this corrigendum.
The writ petitions were allowed to the extent of these directions and disposed of.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Akhilesh And 3 Others vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others
- Case No.: WRIT – A No. 11604 of 2025 with WRIT – A No. 18038 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Prashant Kumar
- Date: April 2, 2026
