# Akhilesh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1895 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-04-02 - **Case number:** Writ A No. 11604 of 2025 - **Bench:** Arindam Sinha, Prashant Kumar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/akhilesh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54439 - **Pages:** 5 ## Text 4 All. Akhilesh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1895 81. The law is well settled that objections relating to maintainability, particularly on the ground of locus standi, ought to be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. Permitting such an objection to be entertained belatedly would not only defeat the cause of substantive justice but would also result in unnecessary protraction of proceedings that have already attained considerable maturity before the Court. 82. In the considered opinion of this Court, the belated plea of lack of locus standi is clearly an afterthought and is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the said objection does not merit acceptance and stands overruled. 83. In view of the aforesaid submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, the precedents relied upon, and the discussion undertaken herein-above, this Court arrives at the considered conclusion that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same suffers from manifest arbitrariness, non-application of mind, and is contrary to the settled legal principles governing the field. 84. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.09.2017 passed by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur is hereby set aside and quashed. 85. The writ petition, being meritorious, stands allowed. 86. Consequently, all consequential benefits shall follow. 87. No order as to costs. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 1895 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J. Writ A No. 11604 of 2025 Alongwith Writ A No. 18038 of 2025 Akhilesh & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Issue(s) for consideration Is the State's recruitment process for Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT) legally sound if its service rules omit the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualification required by notification? Headnotes 1896 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES A. Service/Education Law - Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules, 1983: Rule 8; Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009: Section 23 - Petitioners challenged Rule 8 of the U.P. Subordinate Educational Service Rules, 1983 (amended in 2025) and a UPPSC recruitment advertisement dated July 28, 2025. They argued that the rule omitted TET (pass) as a mandatory qualification, directly violating a National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) 2010 notification (dated 23.08.2010) that requires TET for teaching classes VI to VIII. The State of U.P. countered that this specific recruitment drive was strictly meant for Classes IX and X (which do not require TET under a separate 2014 NCTE notification). They argued that no recruitments were actively being made for classes VI to VIII under these rules. B. The State admitted that there are 904 institutions in Uttar Pradesh where combined classes from VI to XII are taught. The disputed UPPSC recruitment advertisement failed to specify which classes the selected teachers would actually be assigned to teach. Because the rules and the advertisement were ambiguous, there was a clear risk of non-TET-qualified teachers being deployed to teach classes VI to VIII. It was held that the State of Uttar Pradesh must insert "TET (pass)" into Rule 8 as a mandatory prerequisite qualification for any future recruitment intended for teaching classes VI to VIII. And the Public Service Commission (UPPSC) must immediately issue a clarification/corrigendum explicitly stating that the recruitment advertisement dated July 28, 2025, is strictly for teaching Classes IX and X. Writ petitions are allowed to the above extent and disposed of. (E-4) List of Acts Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules, 1983; Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. List of Keywords Service, recruitment, teachers, mandatory, qualification, TET. Appearances for Parties For Petitioner(s): Taniya Pandey For Respondent(s): C.S.C., M.N. Singh, Vaibhav Tripathi (Delivered by Hon'ble Arindam Sinha, J.) 1. Two writ petitions have been taken up for hearing. In Writ - A no.11604 of 2025 prayer is for quashing rule 8 of Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules, 1983 as amended by 6th amendment dated 30th January, 2025 insofar as the same is in contravention of National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) notification dated 23rd August, 2010. Petitioners say the notification mandates passing of Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for appointment to post of Assistant Teacher, to teach classes VI to VIII. Prayer in Writ - A no.18038 of 2025 carries similar prayer inasmuch as, allegedly offending rule 8 is sought to be declared ultravires and consequent quashing of advertisement dated 28th July, 2025 issued by Public Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh for recruitment under the rules. Ms. Taniya Pandey, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners in Writ -A no.11064 of 2025 and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners in the other writ petition. 4 All. Akhilesh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1897 2. Ms. Pandey submits, by notification dated 31st March, 2010 published by authority in Gazette of India Extraordinary on 5th April, 2010, NCTE was conferred power under sub-section (1) in section 23 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, to be authorized as the academic authority to lay down minimum qualification(s) for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher. We obtained confirmation from respondents that the Act applies to teachers to teach upto class VIII. 3. Ms. Pandey submits further, pursuant to this authorization there was notification dated 23rd August, 2010 issued by the authority, mandating eligibility criteria of possessing, apart from other qualification(s) TET (pass). She demonstrates from allegedly offending rule 8 that inspite of the amendment made thereto subsequent to the Act and notification, it did not include the mandated qualification TET (pass) for purpose of the recruitment. She submits upon reliance on statement made in paragraph 8 of supplementary counter affidavit affirmed by the Additional Director of Education that there are 904 institutions, where students in classes VI to XII are being taught. The paragraph is reproduced below. "8. That at this juncture, it may also be stated that in the State of U.P. there are 1488 government high schools where only classes IX and X are taught. Further, there are 70 intermediate colleges where only classes IX to XII are being taught, and there are only 904 institutions where classes VI to XII are being taught." (emphasis supplied) She submits, there has been no recruitment pursuant to the notification. In the circumstances, existence of 904 institutions, where classes VI to XII are being taught necessarily means that Assistant Teachers, who do not have qualification of TET (pass) are also teaching classes VI to VIII. The rule is thus ultravires section 23 in Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, by omission. She seeks interference. 4. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav adopts submissions made by Ms. Pandey and adds, the Defence forces have incorporated the requirement for recruiting teachers to their institutions. Learned advocate for petitioners pray for direction on quashing the advertisement. 5. Mr. Kartikeya Saran, learned advocate, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Saurabh, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appear on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3. They are State through the education department. Mr. Saran submits, there was notification dated 12th November, 2014 issued by NCTE, mandating educational qualifications for recruitment of teachers to classes IX and X. Consequent thereto, two amendments were made to the rules. First was in year 2016, to insert additional requirement of bachelor degree and BEd or equivalent thereto and second was more in nature of clarification in year 2025, inserting inclusive term 'graduation degree'. The amended rules have been relied upon for issuance of aforesaid recruitment notice dated 28th July, 2025. He submits he has clear instructions that there has been no recruitment under the rules for teachers to teach classes VI to VIII. He points out from counter affidavit dated 9th December, 2025, there stands disclosed order dated 28th February, 2017 made by coordinate Bench. Relevant text of the order is reproduced below. "The prayer made in the writ petition reads thus: 1898 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES "a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned advertisement dated 21.12.2016 advertising total 9342 posts of Trained Graduate Teacher/L.T. Grade Teacher to be appointed in Government Inter Colleges for teaching the students from Class 6th to 10th without prescribing Teacher Eligibility Test as essential qualification." The petition is filed on the assumption that the advertisement has been issued for appointing 9342 Trained Graduate Teachers/L.T. Grade Teachers for classes 6 to 10. Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3, on instructions, submits that the impugned advertisement and the posts of Trained Graduate Teachers/L.T. Grade Teachers are for classes 9 and 10, and not for classes 6 to 8th standard. His statement is recorded and accepted. In view thereof, counsel for the petitioner does not press this writ petition." (emphasis supplied) Thereby is demonstration that the rule under challenge was duly amended pursuant to the year 2014 notification issued by NCTE, in respect of recruitment of teachers for classes IX and X. He opposes the writ petitions. 6. Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent no.5 (the Commission) in one writ petition and respondent no.4 in the other. He submits, the recruitment notice was issued by his client for recruitment of trained graduate teachers (TGT). On query he submits, there is no indication in the advertisement regarding classes to be taught by the teachers recruited. Mr. Vaibhav Tripathi, learned advocate appears on behalf of NCTE. He submits, his client was duly empowered to mandate qualifications on recruitment of the teachers. By notification dated 23rd August, 2010 requisite qualifications for recruitment of teachers appointed to teach upto classes VIII were notified. By subsequent notification dated 12th Novermber, 2014, same was notified in respect of teachers who are to be recruited to teach classes IX and X. 7. On specific query, we have not been shown by respondents that there has been recruitment or at least initiated by a recruitment notice, pursuant to the requisite qualification mandated by NCTE on notification dated 23rd August, 2010. It follows, respondents cannot say that no vacancy has arisen in post of teachers to teach classes VI to VIII, particularly when there is admission on affidavit made by the Additional Director of Education that there exists 904 institutions where students study from classes VI to XII. As such, petitioners have demonstrated the omission, more so because the recruitment notice dated 28th July, 2025 does not specify the recruitment necessity of the recruited, in respect of classes to be taught. We find there is a gap in rule 8. On query Mr. Saran submits, upon direction made, State will have to propose amendment. Thus we do direct that there be insertion in rule 8, as requisite qualification in addition to those mentioned, TET (pass). We direct the Commission to issue corrigendum clarifying that the advertisement relates to recruitment of teachers for class IX and X. For the purpose, the State will issue necessary instructions. 9. The writ petitions are allowed to above extent and disposed of. ---------- 4 All. Smt. Meenakshi Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1899 (2026) 4 ILRA 1899 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. Writ A No. 18434 of 2025 Smt. Meenakshi Sharma & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Issue(s) for consideration (a) Whether the respondent authorities exceeded their legally prescribed jurisdiction by reopening and reviewing the validity of the petitioners' 2006 selection (which had already attained finality through a comprehensive approval order in 2018) when a Division Bench of the High Court had explicitly restricted the scope of inquiry solely to the determination of salary arrears from 2014 to 2018. (b) Whether the State's sudden ex-parte cancellation of the 2018 approval and the subsequent termination of the teachers' right to work without issuing notices, furnishing adverse reports, or granting a meaningful opportunity of hearing was legally sustainable? (c) Whether the long, uninterrupted, and fraud-free service of the teachers since 2006 could be legally dismantled on the technical ground that they held B.Ed. degrees rather than basic training certificates, particularly when Supreme Court precedents explicitly protect B.Ed. teachers appointed prior to the 2008 rule amendment? (d) Whether the Regional Approval Committee possessed any statutory power under the law to review and rescind its own detailed, multi-year-old approval order? Headnotes A. Service Law - Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Shiksha (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978: Rule 4(1) - The petitioners were appointed by the Committee of Management of the institution on 18.11.2006 and 18.12.2006 respectively. The institution in question was brought under the grant-in-aid list pursuant to the GO dated 02.12.2006. Teachers of the institution were receiving their salaries from the State exchequer pursuant to the order dated 21.02.2007. However, the petitioners were extended this benefit only after the issuance of the order dated 19.12.2014, whereby provision was made for payment of their salaries from the State exchequer. (Para 39, 40) After thoroughly scrutinizing initial objections regarding their qualifications (holding B.Ed. degrees) and the selection process, the Regional Approval Committee fully validated their appointments and directed the payment of their current salaries from the State exchequer via a detailed order dated 14.08.2018. The petitioners were denied back-pay/arrears for the interim period between 2014 and 2018. In Special Appeal No. 488 of 2024, on 16.05.2024, a Division Bench directed the Secretary of Basic Education to strictly consider their limited claim regarding those salary arrears. (Para 48, 49) Instead of deciding the restricted issue of 2014-2018 arrears, the Secretary of Basic Education issued an order on 26.08.2025, declaring the petitioners' original 2006 appointments void because B.Ed. degrees were allegedly not an approved qualification in 2006. Based on this directive, successive cascading orders were issued by the respondents, culminating in an ex-parte order on 08.09.2025, by the Regional Approval Committee cancelling its own 2018 approval.