ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT DENIES SHIKSHA MITRAS ENTRY TO SPECIAL TET, SAYS EQUALITY DOES NOT MEAN UNIFORM TREATMENT DESPITE RELEVANT DIFFERENCES:

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by 221 Shiksha Mitras seeking permission to appear for the Special Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) intended for certain in-service teachers. The Court held that the Special TET is a transitional qualifying measure designed to enable eligible teachers to acquire a mandatory qualification, rather than a recruitment mechanism conferring any preferential right to appointment. It observed that the Constitution guarantees equality before law but does not mandate uniform treatment irrespective of relevant differences.

A Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held that the classification between Shiksha Mitras and Assistant Teachers who entered service before TET became mandatory was legally sustainable. The Court ruled that the opportunity extended to specified in-service teachers neither creates posts nor reserves vacancies nor confers any vested right to appointment. It further observed that performing similar teaching duties does not eliminate the legal distinctions arising from different modes of appointment and service status.

The petitioners, represented by Advocate Zain Abbas, have been working as Shiksha Mitras in primary and upper-primary schools for approximately 26 years. They challenged the Government Order and notification issued by the Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission, Prayagraj, which scheduled the Special TET from November 3, 2026. The Government Order restricted eligibility to specified categories of serving teachers, including teachers in aided and recognised schools and special teachers working with children with special needs. Kushmondeya Shahi, Standing Counsel, appeared for the respondents.

The State issued the Government Order following the Supreme Court's decision in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra, which held that TET was mandatory for in-service teachers. By an order dated May 29, 2026, the Supreme Court extended the period for compliance until August 31, 2028. The petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to quash their exclusion from the Special TET.

The Commission opposed the petition, arguing that a joint writ petition involving 221 petitioners from different districts, without individual particulars, was not maintainable. It also pointed out that the petitioners had not appeared for the regular TET conducted in July 2026. The matter was decided with the consent of the parties after considering their written submissions.

Rejecting the challenge under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the Court held that the classification was neither arbitrary nor unrelated to the objective of the Government Order. The distinguishing factor was that the eligible teachers were already serving under appointments made before TET became a mandatory qualification and were subsequently required to acquire it pursuant to judicial directions. The transitional arrangement sought to facilitate compliance without abruptly disrupting existing teaching establishments or elementary education.

The Bench further observed that Shiksha Mitras were engaged under a separate contractual and administrative framework and could not claim parity with Assistant Teachers who had entered regular service under an earlier qualification regime. Article 16 prohibits discriminatory treatment in public employment but does not prevent rational classifications based on relevant differences in appointment and service status.

The Court also noted that the Government Order implemented the Supreme Court's directions and that the High Court could not sit in appeal over them. Referring to Article 144, it emphasised the constitutional obligation of all civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court. Although the petitioners' failure to participate in the regular TET was a relevant consideration, it was not decisive in determining the validity of the Special TET arrangement. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.