Constitution Guarantees Equality Before Law, Not Uniformity Irrespective Of Relevant Differences: Allahabad High Court Denies Shiksha Mitras Entry Into Special TET
The Court held that it is a transitional qualifying measure, not a recruitment process; Shiksha Mitras not similarly situated with Pre-TET in-service teachers.
Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition by 221 Shiksha Mitras who sought to be allowed to appear in the Special Teacher Eligibility Test meant for in-service teachers. The Court held that the Special TET is not a recruitment process but a transitional qualifying measure. It creates no post, reserves no vacancy and confers no right of appointment or promotion, and it merely lets existing teachers acquire a qualification made mandatory for their continuation in service by the Supreme Court.
Rejecting the challenge under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the Court observed that the Constitution guarantees equality before law, not uniformity irrespective of relevant differences. It held that Shiksha Mitras, who were engaged under a separate contractual and administrative arrangement, cannot claim parity with Assistant Teachers who were already in service before TET became a mandatory qualification. Performing similar teaching duties, the Court said, does not erase the legal distinction in their appointment and service status, and the classification has a direct nexus with the object of facilitating compliance without disrupting existing teaching establishments.
A Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed, “…the Constitution guarantees equality before law, not uniformity irrespective of relevant differences, it requires equals to be treated equally and permits unequals, where rationally distinguished, to be treated differently”.
“…the Special TET contemplated under the impugned Government Order cannot be treated as a recruitment mechanism or as a device conferring any preferential right of appointment. It is a transitional qualifying measure intended to enable the specified class of existing in-service teachers to fulfil a mandatory qualification which became applicable to them subsequent to their entry into service. The opportunity to appear in such qualifying examination, therefore, neither creates any post nor reserves any vacancy nor confers any vested right of appointment”.
Advocate Zain Abbas appeared for the petitioners and Kushmondeya Shahi, Standing Counsel appeared for the respondent.
The petitioners, who have worked as Shiksha Mitras in primary and upper-primary schools for about 26 years, challenged the order and notification of the Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission, Prayagraj, which scheduled the examination from November 3, 2026. The Government Order confined eligibility to certain serving teachers, including those in aided and recognised schools and special teachers for children with special needs.
The State had issued it after the Supreme Court, in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra, held TET mandatory for in-service teachers, and extended the compliance period to August 31, 2028 by its review order of May 29, 2026.
The petitioners approached the High Court directly under Article 226, seeking to quash the exclusion. The Commission contended that a joint petition by 221 petitioners from different districts, without individual particulars, was not maintainable, and that the petitioners had not appeared in the regular TET held in July 2026. The matter was decided with the consent of the parties after written submissions.
The Court held that the Government Order is not a recruitment measure but gives teachers already in service a chance to acquire a qualification held mandatory for their continuation. Shiksha Mitras were engaged under a separate contractual and administrative arrangement, it noted, and cannot claim parity with a class to which they do not belong. Performing similar teaching duties, it observed, does not obliterate legal distinctions in appointment and service status. Article 16, it held, forbids discrimination in appointment but not a rational transitional arrangement.
“…the classification made by the impugned Government Order is neither artificial nor extraneous. The distinguishing circumstance is existing service pursuant to an appointment, coupled with the judicially declared obligation of such teachers to acquire TET within the period fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The object is equally discernible, to facilitate compliance with the statutory qualification requirement without bringing about an abrupt disruption in the existing teaching establishment and the elementary education of children. The nexus between the classification and the object is therefore direct and substantial”, the Bench said.
“…the two categories occupy distinct legal and factual fields, Shiksha Mitras derive their engagement from a separate mode of appointment, whereas pre-TET Assistant Teachers were already holding regular teaching posts before TET was introduced as a mandatory qualification. The benefit extended to the latter category cannot, therefore, be treated as a preferential relaxation in favour of similarly situated prospective candidates, rather, it constitutes a transitional measure designed to reconcile the subsequent statutory requirement with the pre-existing service position of teachers who had entered the cadre under an earlier qualification regime”, the Bench noted further.
The Court added that, as the order implements the Supreme Court's directions, it could not sit in appeal over them, and referred to the duty under Article 144 to act in aid of that Court. It said non-participation in the regular TET was significant but not decisive of the measure's validity.
The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Cause Title: Vaseem Ahamad and 220 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:206035)
Appearances:
Petitioners: Zain Abbas, Advocate.
Respondent: Kushmondeya Shahi, Vaibhav Tripathi, Advocates.