Upgradation extinguishes Junior High School identity; subsequent vacancies cannot be filled under the 1978 Rules.

Recognised aided Junior High Schools in Uttar Pradesh were governed by the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, as amended in 2019, under which recruitment of Assistant Teachers was centralised and linked to an eligibility examination.

The appellants passed the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2021, and applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 03.11.2025, which notified 1,262 Assistant Teacher vacancies in 600 institutions.

During the recruitment process, a writ petition challenged inclusion of vacancies in institutions that had subsequently been upgraded and recognised as High Schools or Intermediate Colleges.

By judgment dated 19.02.2026, the learned Single Judge directed exclusion of those vacancies while permitting recruitment for institutions that remained Junior High Schools.

Pursuant to that judgment, the authorities excluded the upgraded institutions, reducing the vacancies from 1,262 to 634, after counselling had already taken place.

The appellants, who were not parties to the writ petitions but were directly affected candidates, sought leave to appeal; leave was granted because they suffered direct and substantial prejudice.

Whether, after recognition or upgradation of an aided Junior High School as a High School or Intermediate College, a vacancy arising thereafter could be filled under the 1978 Rules, as amended in 2019.

Whether repeal of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 revived or continued the applicability of the 1978 Rules to vacancies arising in an upgraded institution, particularly where the institution was self-financed and outside the scope of the U.P. Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023.

Whether exclusion of the vacancies from the recruitment process initiated by the advertisement dated 03.11.2025 amounted to an impermissible alteration of the “rules of the game” under Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court.

The Court applied the 1978 Rules, as amended by the Seventh Amendment in 2019, which regulate recruitment to recognised aided Junior High Schools.

Under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, recognition or upgradation as a High School or Intermediate College subjects the institution to the statutory regime governing secondary institutions.

Relying on the Full Bench decision in State of U.P. v. District Judge, Varanasi, 1981 UPLBEC 336, and the Division Bench authorities in Ajay Pratap Rai v. District Basic Education Officer, Smt. Manju Awasthi v. State of U.P., and C/M Standard Intermediate College, Mau Aima v. State of U.P., the Court held that upgradation extinguishes the institution’s separate legal identity as a Junior High School and that future vacancies cannot be filled under the Junior High School recruitment rules.

Section 13-A of the U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978 operates only as a transitional protection for existing employees of upgraded institutions and does not preserve the Junior High School recruitment regime for future vacancies.

The repeal of the 1982 Act does not revive a statutory regime that had ceased to apply upon upgradation, nor does exclusion of self-financed institutions from the 2023 Act revive the 1978 Rules.

Under Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, (2025) 2 SCC 1, eligibility criteria cannot ordinarily be altered mid-recruitment, but correction of the legally available vacancy position is distinct from changing the rules of selection.

Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, 1991 (3) SCC 47, and Anupal Singh v. State of U.P., 2020 (2) SCC 173 establish that inclusion in a select list or participation in counselling does not create an indefeasible right to appointment.

The Court held that recognition or upgradation transformed the institution as a whole into a High School or Intermediate College; the lower Junior High School section did not retain an independent legal identity for recruitment purposes.

Consequently, any vacancy arising after upgradation was a vacancy in the upgraded institution and could not lawfully be included in recruitment under the 1978 Rules, even if the post originally related to the Junior High School section or the incumbent was protected under Section 13-A.

Although the upgraded self-financed institutions were outside the coverage of the 2023 Act, that statutory gap did not revive the 1978 Rules, because repeal could not restore a recruitment regime that had already ceased to apply.

The exclusion of the vacancies did not alter qualifications, merit criteria, reservation, examination, counselling, or any condition governing candidature; it merely corrected the identity and number of vacancies to conform to the governing statutory framework.

The appellants’ success in the eligibility examination, provisional selection, and participation in counselling therefore did not confer a right to appointment against posts that were legally unavailable under the advertised rules.

A vacancy arising after a Junior High School is upgraded and recognised as a High School or Intermediate College cannot be filled under the 1978 Rules, as amended in 2019; repeal of the 1982 Act does not revive those Rules; and exclusion of such vacancies from the recruitment process did not impermissibly change the “rules of the game”.

The judgment dated 19.02.2026 and the consequential notifications dated 09.03.2026 and 15.03.2026 were upheld to that extent.

Vacancies in institutions that continued to be recognised aided Junior High Schools as on 03.11.2025 remained governed by the applicable rules and recruitment process.

The connected appeals were dismissed, with no order as to costs.