Teachers appointed under special tribal provisions cannot be denied cadre absorption for failing the Teacher Eligibility Test.

The petitioners, contractual language teachers appointed under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005, sought permission to resume duties and extension of the benefit of regular appointment/absorption in the Class IV/Adhyapak cadre against posts created by the State on 27 September 2018, without requiring them to pass the Teacher Eligibility Test (“TET”). They also challenged the common order dated 15 November 2019, by which their claim had been rejected

The State did not file a reply despite repeated opportunities and a specific direction that the matter would be decided on the basis of an identical case if no reply was filed.

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

Whether the petitioners, being similarly situated contractual language teachers appointed under the special provisions applicable to primitive tribes, could be denied absorption/appointment in the Adhyapak cadre solely because they had not passed the TET

Whether the common order dated 15 November 2019 rejecting the petitioners’ claim was liable to be quashed on the ground that similarly situated teachers had already been granted corresponding benefits

Whether the relief granted in the earlier decisions concerning similarly situated employees should be extended to the present petitioners under the principle of equal treatment

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

It applied Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005, which creates special provisions for teachers belonging to specified primitive tribes and exempts them from the TET requirement otherwise prescribed under Rule 6.

It relied on the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Adhyapak Samvarg (Employment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2008, particularly the provisions concerning appointment/merger of eligible Samvida Shala Shikshaks into the Adhyapak cadre.

The Court held that the later Madhya Pradesh Tribes and Scheduled Castes Teaching Cadre (Service and Recruitment) Rules, 2018, and subsequent administrative instructions could not be used to discriminate against persons whose cases ought to have been considered earlier, particularly after similarly situated employees had already received the benefit.

It relied on Pradeep Singh Adiwasi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No. 6933/2016, in which termination for non-passing of TET was quashed for teachers appointed under the special tribal provision.

It relied on Kartar Singh Badretiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No. 901/2020, which quashed the same impugned order and directed extension of Adhyapak-cadre benefits.

The Court also applied the principle in State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747, that similarly situated persons must be treated alike and should not be denied relief merely because only some of them approached the court.

The Court treated the present petition as identical to Lakhan Lal and the earlier decision in Kartar Singh Badretiya.

In those cases, the Court had found that the petitioners were appointed under the special tribal provisions of the 2005 Rules, under which passing TET was not an essential condition of service.

The petitioners’ cases had not been considered when similarly situated teachers in Sheopur District were granted absorption/appointment benefits in 2015; the resulting delay was attributable to the respondents and could not fairly be used to subject the petitioners to the subsequently introduced 2018 Rules and later instructions.

Since the State neither distinguished the petitioners from the beneficiaries of the earlier orders nor filed a reply despite express directions, the Court applied the principle of parity and held that the petitioners could not be discriminated against on the basis of the later TET requirement.

The directions issued in Kartar Singh Badretiya were made applicable mutatis mutandis to the petitioners.

Consequently, the order dated 15 November 2019 was quashed; the respondents were directed to extend to the petitioners the benefit of the Adhyapak Samvarg under the 2008 Rules and the same benefits granted to similarly situated teachers in Sheopur District; and all consequential benefits were to be granted within three months from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The petitioners were not entitled to back wages for periods during which they had not actually worked, applying the principle of “no work, no pay”; however, the respondents were directed to permit them to resume duties and continue payment of salary.