Teachers appointed under Rule 7 are exempt from TET and entitled to Adhyapak cadre benefits.

The petitioners, who were appointed as Samvida Shala Shikshak (Language), Grade III, under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005, sought permission to resume duties, complete the second year of their D.Ed. course, and obtain the benefit of appointment/absorption in the Adhyapak Samvarg under the 2008 Rules.

They also challenged the common order dated 15 November 2019, by which their claim was rejected, principally on the ground that they had not passed the Teacher Eligibility Test (“TET”).

The State did not file a reply despite repeated opportunities and an order dated 12 August 2026 directing it to do so within four weeks, failing which the petition would be decided in accordance with an identical case.

The Court noted that the same controversy had already been decided in Lakhan Lal and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, which followed the decision in Kartar Singh Badretiya and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, where the common order dated 15 November 2019 had been quashed and similarly situated linguistic teachers had been granted relief.

Whether the petitioners, being similarly situated to the linguistic teachers covered by the decisions in Kartar Singh Badretiya and Lakhan Lal, were entitled to identical relief against the common order dated 15 November 2019.

Whether the petitioners could be denied appointment/absorption in the Adhyapak Samvarg under the 2008 Rules solely because they had not passed the TET, particularly when their appointments were made under the special provisions applicable to primitive tribes under the 2005 Rules.

Whether the subsequent Madhya Pradesh Tribes and Scheduled Castes Teaching Cadre (Service and Recruitment) Rules, 2018, and subsequent administrative instructions, could be applied to defeat benefits allegedly available to the petitioners before those rules and instructions came into force.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Under Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak Rules, 2005, special provisions applied to teachers belonging to specified primitive tribes, and appointments made under that provision were not subject to the TET requirement prescribed under Rule 6.

Rule 5(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Adhyapak Samvarg Rules, 2008 contemplated appointment of Samvida Shala Shikshaks to the corresponding posts in the Adhyapak Samvarg, subject to the applicable conditions.

The Court relied on the earlier coordinate-Bench decision in W.P. No. 6933/2016, which held that teachers appointed under the special primitive-tribe provision could not be removed merely for not passing TET.

It also followed Kartar Singh Badretiya, which quashed the common order dated 15 November 2019 and directed extension of Adhyapak Samvarg benefits and consequential relief.

Applying the principle in State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747, the Court held that similarly situated employees should receive similar treatment even if only some of them had approached the court.

The Court treated the controversy as squarely covered by the earlier decisions because the impugned order dated 15 November 2019 was common and had already been quashed in Kartar Singh Badretiya.

The State failed to file a reply despite a specific final opportunity, and therefore did not rebut the petitioners’ assertion that similarly situated teachers had already received the benefit of absorption/appointment.

The earlier decisions had held that teachers appointed under the special provision for primitive tribes under the 2005 Rules were not required to pass TET under Rule 6; consequently, the later 2018 Rules and administrative instructions could not be used to discriminate against the petitioners or retrospectively defeat their claim.

Since the petitioners’ case was identical to that in Lakhan Lal and Kartar Singh Badretiya, the Court applied those rulings mutatis mutandis rather than independently reconsidering the merits.

Accordingly, the order dated 15 November 2019 was to be treated as quashed; the respondents were directed to extend to the petitioners the benefit of the Adhyapak Samvarg under the 2008 Rules, grant the same benefit already given to similarly situated persons, provide consequential benefits within three months, permit the petitioners to perform their duties, and continue payment of salary.

Back wages were excluded for the period during which the petitioners had not actually worked, applying the principle of “no work, no pay”.