Administrative upgradation based on exigency does not confer promotion rights if statutory rules and mandatory TET qualifications are bypassed.

The respondents were appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers in 2008 at Government Schools for the Deaf

On 19.11.2020, the Government issued orders upgrading them to B.T. Assistants (Graduate Teachers) to ensure uninterrupted education for special children in subjects like English, Science, and Maths

However, on 11.12.2020—within 22 days—the Commissioner cancelled the upgradation

The respondents challenged this cancellation in W.P.No.20295 of 2020. The Writ Court set aside the cancellation on the grounds of violation of natural justice (non-issuance of notice)

The State preferred this intra-court appeal against the Writ Court's order.

1. Whether the administrative cancellation of an upgradation within a short period (22 days) requires a prior hearing if the original upgradation was in violation of service rules

2. Whether upgradation granted on administrative exigency confers a vested right to regular promotion or continuation in the post

3. Whether Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) is a mandatory qualification for such appointments/upgradations

"upgradation" is an administrative exigency and cannot be equated with "promotion," which must strictly follow statutory service rules, including the preparation of a seniority panel

the Regulations issued by the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) and the precedent affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India making the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) a mandatory qualification for all teaching appointments

the principle that the absence of a sanctioned post invalidates permanent appointment to a higher grade

The Court reasoned that the initial upgradation was a temporary administrative measure and did not constitute a regular promotion under service rules

Since the respondents lacked the mandatory TET qualification required by NCTE regulations and the Supreme Court, they could not be legally appointed as regular teachers

the State established that no sanctioned posts were available for such upgradations, and continuing them would infringe upon the seniority and promotional rights of other eligible teachers across the state

The Court found that because the cancellation occurred within 22 days and the respondents had no legal right to the upgraded post, the lack of a prior notice or opportunity to be heard (natural justice) did not cause any "prejudice to the service right" that would warrant setting aside the administrative order

It held that upgradation per se does not confer a right to the post and that graduate teacher vacancies must be filled only through regular promotion or direct recruitment according to service rules

The Court directed that whenever the State decides to fill sanctioned posts in the future, a panel must be prepared considering all eligible teachers strictly in accordance with rules

No costs were awarded