Teachers appointed under special tribal provisions cannot be denied Adhyapak cadre benefits solely for not passing TET.

The petitioners invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking permission to resume/discharge their duties, extension of the benefit of the Adhyapak Samvarg under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Adhyapak Samvarg Rules, 2008, or regular appointment against posts created by the Government, without being required to pass the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), and quashing of the common order dated 15 November 2019 passed by respondent No. 2.

The Court recorded that the controversy was identical to that decided in Lakhan Lal and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, W.P. No. 1660/2026.

The respondents had not filed a reply despite being granted a final opportunity, and the Court consequently proceeded on the basis of the already-decided identical matter.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to the same relief as similarly situated language teachers whose services had been granted the benefit of the Adhyapak Samvarg under the 2008 Rules, notwithstanding the subsequent requirement of passing the TET under the 2018 Rules?

Whether the common order dated 15 November 2019, rejecting the petitioners’ claim on the basis of the 2018 Rules and the TET requirement, was liable to be quashed?

Whether the petitioners were entitled to consequential service benefits, including permission to resume duties and continuation of salary, subject to the principle of “no work, no pay”?

The Court applied the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005, particularly Rule 7, which creates special provisions for persons belonging to specified primitive tribes and exempts appointments made under that provision from the TET requirement otherwise contemplated by Rule 6.

The Court further relied on State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747, for the principle that similarly situated persons should ordinarily be treated alike and should not be denied equal treatment merely because only some of them approached the Court.

The Court treated the present petition as governed by the decision in Lakhan Lal, which itself concerned the same impugned order and the same legal controversy.

Applying the principle of equal treatment in service jurisprudence, the Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the same relief as the similarly situated employees, and that the directions in Kartar Singh Badretiya and Lakhan Lal applied to them mutatis mutandis.

Accordingly, the petitioners were granted the same relief as similarly situated employees, including quashing of the order dated 15 November 2019, extension of the benefit of the Adhyapak Samvarg under the 2008 Rules, permission to discharge duties, and consequential service benefits. Back wages remained subject to the principle of “no work, no pay,” while the respondents were directed to permit the petitioners to work and continue paying salary in accordance with the applicable directions.