Allahabad High Court upholds UP’s special TET for in-service teachers, says it grants no preference in recruitment

The petitioners, who had qualified the regular Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) and were awaiting teacher recruitment, challenged the State Government Order dated 2 September 2026 and consequential memorandum/advertisement dated 3 September 2026.

Those measures provided for a Special TET for certain in-service teachers appointed before 23 August 2010; the petitioners did not challenge the provision concerning candidates with special needs.

They sought to quash the measures, alleging that a separate test could dilute NCTE-prescribed standards and adversely affect their opportunity for public employment.

The State maintained that the Special TET would enable in-service teachers to acquire the qualification required under the statutory scheme and Supreme Court directions.

The High Court dismissed the petition.

1. Whether the State Government’s decision to conduct a Special TET for the concerned in-service teachers was contrary to the RTE Act and NCTE-prescribed standards, or otherwise arbitrary under Articles 14 and 16.

2. Whether providing those teachers an opportunity to qualify TET, without more, caused legally cognizable prejudice to the petitioners or conferred an unconstitutional preference in recruitment.

Section 23(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) empowers the designated academic authority, NCTE, to prescribe minimum teacher qualifications; the NCTE notifications make passing TET a mandatory qualification for covered teachers.

Section 23(2), as amended, provides a framework for existing teachers to acquire prescribed minimum qualifications.

In Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912, the Supreme Court held TET mandatory for teachers covered by the statutory scheme and allowed the relevant in-service teachers time to qualify; the subsequent review extended the deadline to 31 August 2028 and called for periodic opportunities to take TET.

Articles 14 and 16 prohibit arbitrary discrimination and guarantee equality of opportunity in public employment, but do not prevent a class of candidates from acquiring a prescribed minimum qualification; any recruitment preference must have lawful authority.

The Full Bench decision in Anand Kumar Yadav v. Union of India, 2015 (8) ADJ 338, recognizes the importance of TET to teaching standards and NCTE’s authority to prescribe qualifications.

The Court treated the Special TET as a means of enabling the concerned in-service teachers to obtain—not avoid—the mandatory TET qualification within the period allowed by the Supreme Court.

The order did not reserve vacancies, award additional marks or weightage, or otherwise grant a preference in recruitment; passing the Special TET would only satisfy a threshold qualification.

The petitioners’ existing TET qualifications remained valid, and they retained the opportunity to compete under the applicable recruitment rules.

Their qualification and expectation of consideration did not amount to a vested right to appointment or prevent others from acquiring the same minimum qualification.

Any future preference unsupported by the rules or Supreme Court directions could be challenged when a recruitment process occurred, but that possibility did not justify invalidating the present order.

The writ petition was dismissed.

The petitioners were left at liberty to challenge any subsequent recruitment action that grants an unauthorised preference or advantage.