# Km. Dimple Singh & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 270
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-12
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 17615 of 2025
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/km-dimple-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52832
- **Pages:** 15

## Text

_Characters 0–39,792 of 47,073. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39792 for what follows._

270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
coming every day before this Court in
which allegations were made against the
teachers and headmasters of the institution
to the effect that they are not attending the
institution within time. The Right of
Children
to
Free
and
Compulsory
Education
Act,
2009
has
already
promulgated by the Central Government in
the year 2009 according to which right to
education to the children is a fundamental
right. In case teachers will not attend the
institution within time it will frustrate the
mandate of the Act, 2009 and the children
will be deprived off from this fundamental
rights guaranteed under Article 21-A of the
Constitution of India which was inserted in
to the Constitution by means of the
Constitution (86 Amendment) Act, 2002
which mandate every State to provide free
and compulsory education to all children in
the age group of 6 to 14 years.

32. In this view of the matter and also
in the interest of justice, without interfering
with the orders of suspension, which are
under challenge in the present writ
petitions, writ petitions are disposed of
with a direction to the disciplinary
authority to conclude the disciplinary
proceedings initiated against them most
expeditiously and positively within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order.

33. A further mandamus is issued to
the
respondent
no.1
namely
Special
Secretary, Basic Education, State of U.P.
at Lucknow to take a policy decision and
also to take all possible steps for ensuring
the presence of teachers in school within
time. The aforesaid decision be taken by
the Respondent No.1 most expeditiously
and positively within a period of 3 months
from today.S

----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 270
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 17615 of 2025
&
Writ A No. 18573 of 2025

Km. Dimple Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for consideration
Whether for appointment to the post of
Headmaster, the teaching experience must
mandatorily be experience gained in the post
of Assistant Teacher alone, or whether
'teaching experience' simplicitor including
experience acquired as a part-time instructor
can be treated as valid experience for the
purpose of eligibility?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Right of Children to Free
and Compulsory Education Act, 2009:
Schedule-1(b)(3)(ii) of Section 19; U.P.
Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High
Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of
Service of Teachers), Rules 1978 (Seventh
Amendment) Rules, 2019: Rule 4(2).

Eligibility conditions prescribed under the
statutory
recruitment
rules
must
be
strictly
construed
and
scrupulously
followed. Neither the appointing authority
nor
the
court
can
dilute,
relax,
or
substitute
the
essential
qualifications
unless such power is expressly conferred
by the rules themselves. The purpose behind
prescribing teaching experience for the post of
Headmaster
is
to
ensure
administrative
efficiency, academic leadership, and familiarity
with
institutional
responsibilities
acquired
through regular service. (Para 37)
12 All. Km. Dimple Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
271
Contractual or irregular engagements do
not confer parity with regular appointees
nor entitlement to be treated alike for
service benefits. (Para 42)

In present case, it is evident that if the
recruitment rules specifically require teaching
experience as an Assistant Teacher in regular
service, experience acquired merely as a parttime
instructor
lacking
the
attributes
of
permanency, administrative responsibility, and
regular academic engagement cannot be treated
as valid compliance with the eligibility criteria.
To hold otherwise would amount to rewriting
the rules, which is impermissible in law. (Para
39)

B. The principle of equivalence cannot be
presumed. When statutory rules prescribe
specific qualifications, the same cannot be
relaxed on equitable considerations, and
appointments made contrary thereto are
unsustainable in law. Experience must be of
the nature and character contemplated by the
rules, and experience gained in any other
capacity cannot be treated as equivalent unless
the rules so provide. (Para 38, 41, 47)

The duties discharged by part-time instructors
are restricted in scope and duration and cannot
be equated with the comprehensive academic,
evaluative, and administrative responsibilities
entrusted to Assistant Teachers. In the absence
of any provision under the Rules, 1978,
expressly recognizing part-time service as
equivalent to regular teaching service, such
experience cannot be imported to satisfy the
eligibility requirement for appointment to the
post of Headmaster. (Para 40, 44, 51)

Even otherwise, under the notification / GO
dated 19.02.2021, applications were invited only
from those candidates who possessed a
minimum of five years' teaching experience as
an Assistant Teacher, such experience being a
mandatory
and
essential
qualification
for
consideration for appointment on the post of
Headmaster. Thus, the rule of the game has not
been changed in the midst of the selection
proceedings. (Para 49)

C. The expression 'teaching experience'
occurring in Rule 4 of the Rules of 1978,
as amended in 2019, unequivocally refers
to experience acquired while serving as a
duly appointed teacher in a recognized
Junior High School of Senior Basic School,
forming part of the regular teaching
cadre. Experience gained in any other capacity,
including as a part-time instructor does not
satisfy the statutory requirement prescribed
under the rules and cannot be taken into
consideration for appointment to the post of
Headmaster. (Para 43, 52)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited:
1. Sadanand Singh Vs. State of U.P. Thru Secy &
Ors., Writ-A No. 6419 of 2013, Decided on
10.12.2018 (Para 17)
2. Bhatiya & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others
Writ-A No. 2842 of 2010 (Para 17)
3. Ram Darash Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Others,
Civil Misc. Writ Petition (A) No. 64307 of 2015
(Para 23)
4. P.M. Latha and another Vs. State of Kerala
and others, (2003) 3 SCC 541 (Para 38)
5. Yogesh Kumar and others Vs. Government of
NCT Delhi and others, (2003) 3 SCC 548 (Para
38)
6. P. Mahendran and others Vs. State of
Karnataka and others, (1990) 1 SCC 411 (Para
41)
7. State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Jagdish
Chopra, (2007) 8 SCC 161 (Para 41)
8. Chairman, LIC and others Vs. A. Masilamani,
(2013) 6 SCC 530 (Para 42)
9. State of Rajasthan Vs. Kunji Raman, (1997) 2
SCC 517 (Para 42)
10. Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs.
Umadevi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 (Para 42)

List of Acts
 Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009 (Parliamentary Act No. 35
of 2009); U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior
High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of
Service of Teachers), Rules 1978; U.P. Basic
Education (Teachers) Services Rules, 1981.

List of Keywords
 appointment, teacher, part time instructors,
recruitment, qualification, eligibility

Appearances for Parties
272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
For
Petitioner(s):
Siddharth
Khare,
Sr.
Advocate
For Respondent(s): C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned
Chief Standing Counsel has filed Short
Counter Affidavit, which is taken on
record. Learned counsel for the petitioners
does not propose to file rejoinder affidavit
to the said short counter affidavit.

2. There are thirteen petitioners in
Writ-A No. 17615 of 2025 and three
petitioners in Writ-A No. 18573 of 2025.
Controversy involved in both the writ
petitions is similar, hence, they are being
decided by this common judgement.

3. The petitioners have approached
this court with a prayer to quash the
prescribed
format
of
the
experience
certificate, contained in Appendix-3 to the
Circular dated 03.11.2025, insofar as it
insists
upon
experience
as
Assistant
Teacher/ Headmaster, and further to treat
the petitioners as fully eligible in terms of
notification dated 04.12.2019 permitting
them to participate in the remaining process
of selection.

4. Placing the facts of the case, learned
counsel for the petitioners submits that the
Parliament enacted the Right of Children to
Free and Compulsory Education Act,
20091 (Parliamentary Act No. 35 of 2009),
making provisions for free and compulsory
education for all children up to the age of
14 years. For the implementation of the
said Act, a Government Order dated
31.01.2013 was issued. Pursuant thereto,
the District Basic Education Officers of the
concerned
districts
published
an
advertisement inviting applications from
eligible candidates for appointment as Part
Time Instructors. Being eligible for the said
posts, the petitioners applied and were
appointed as part-time Instructors in view
of the Schedule-1(b)(3)(ii) of Section 19 of
the Act of 2009, wherein part-time
instructors for teaching Art Education,
Health and Physical Education and Work
Education were to be appointed for
teaching Classes 6 to 8 in schools having
more than 100 students.

5. The details of initial appointment of
the petitioners in Writ-A No. 17615 of
2025,
as
part-time
instructors,
are:
petitioner nos. 1 and 8 were granted
appointment
in
District
Sultanpur,
petitioner no. 02 in District Bhadohi,
petitioner nos. 3 and 4 in District Basti,
petitioner no. 5 in District Varanasi,
petitioner no. 6 in District Muzaffarnagar,
petitioner no. 7 in District Barabanki,
petitioner no. 9 in District Kaushambi,
petitioner no. 10 in District Kushinagar,
petitioner no. 11 in District Meerut,
petitioner no. 12 in District Jaunpur and
petitioner no. 13 was offered appointment
in District Saharanpur. The appointment
letters were issued to them on different
dates in the months of June, July and
September, 2013, pursuant to which the
petitioners joined their respective places of
postings. The petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 8
were appointed in the subject of Work
Education, while others (petitioner nos. 2,
4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13) were granted
appointment in Art Education.

6. The petitioners in Writ-A No.
18573 of 2025 were granted appointment in
the subject of Art Education. Appointment
letters to petitioner nos. 1 & 2 were issued
on 23.02.2013 and order of appointment
12 All. Km. Dimple Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
273
was issued to petitioner no. 3 on
25.02.2013.

7.
As
the
appointment
of
the
petitioners was in accordance with the
stipulations contained in the Government
Order dated 31.01.2013 for a period of 11
months, annual extension was granted to
each of them and accordingly extension
orders in respect to each petitioner were
issued for every year succeeding 2013-14.
Since then the work and conduct of the
petitioners have been satisfactory and there
was no complaint against them. Although
the petitioners were treated as part time
instructors but they discharged full time
duties in their respective schools. Apart
from teaching the subject for which they
were appointed, they were also required to
teach other subjects to the students.

8.
Furthermore,
in
addition
to
teaching, the petitioners were also required
to discharge other duties pertaining to
elections as booth level officers/ polling
officers,
duties
relating
to
different
categories of surveys conducted under
various Government Orders as well as
duties with regard to Summer Camp for the
students.

9. The petitioners were paid salary
for 11 months every year. The salary for
15 days for the month of December and
15 days salary for June stood deducted.
They were paid monthly emoluments of
Rs. 7,000/- which were subsequently
increased to Rs. 9,000/- per month.
Accordingly, the petitioners, who were
appointed as part-time instructors since
the year 2013 and are continuing till
date, their services have been renewed
after a period of every 11 months as
stipulated in the Government Order
dated 31.01.2013.

10. The recruitment of teachers and
headmasters is governed by the provisions
of the U.P. Recognised Basic Schools
(Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and
Conditions of Service of Teachers), Rules
19782 as amended on 04.12.20193. By the
said
amendment,
Rule-10
has
been
substituted and as per the amended Rule10, the Management of each institution is
required to intimate the number of
vacancies to the Director of Education
(Basic), who is required to issue an
advertisement in at least two leading/
widely
circulated
daily
newspapers,
inviting online applications from the
candidates
possessing
the
prescribed
educational and trainings qualification. The
selection process requires a recruitment
examination to be conducted by the
authority, as may be specified by the State
Government, on the basis of which the
result is prepared and the same is sent by
the Director of Education (Basic) to the
Basic Education Officer after allotment of
district/ school for appointment.

11.
Pursuant
to
the
aforesaid
provisions, the State Government issued an
order dated 19.02.2021, notifying the
Junior High School Headmaster/ Assistant
Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2021.
As per Clause-2 of the said Government
Order,
the
Examination
Regulatory
Authority, U.P., Prayagraj was specified as
the examination body and the procedure for
the
examination
was
also
specified.
Pursuant to the said Government Order, an
advertisement
was
issued
by
the
Examination Regulatory Authority, inviting
applications from eligible candidates. The
petitioners also applied for the posts of
Assistant Teacher as well as Headmaster
and participated in the written examination
held on 17.10.2021. The result of the
written examination was declared on
274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
15.11.2021, wherein all the petitioners
qualified for being appointed on the post of
Headmaster.

12. Due to some litigation, a revised
result
was
published
on 06.09.2022,
wherein also all the petitioners were shown
as qualified in the written examination.
Thereafter, the petitioners awaited the
finalization of the selection proceedings.
On 03.11.2025, the Director of Education
(Basic) proceeded to issue a circular letter
notifying the schedule for completion of
the remaining steps in the procedure for
selection,
according
to
which
all
candidates, declared successful in the
written examination, were required to fill
up online application forms between
15.11.2025 to 05.12.2025 and were also
required to upload the documents specified
in the circular. One of the documents
required for uploading was an experience
certificate certified by the Basic Shiksha
Adhikari in the prescribed format contained
in Appendix-3 of the circular dated
03.11.2025.

13. The format specified in the
Appendix-3
requires
certificate
of
experience on the post of Assistant
Teacher. The petitioners are aggrieved by
the specification of the requirement of
experience as Assistant Teacher / Head
Master as specified in the format for
experience certificate as the same is in
conflict with the eligibility prescribed
under the Rules, 1978, as originally
existing and as per the amended Rules
2019.

14. Rule-4 of the Rules, 1978, as
amended in the year 2019, specifies the
minimum qualification for the post of
Headmaster, which requires five years of
teaching experience in a recognized Junior
High School or Senior Basic School run by
the U.P. Basic Education Board. Each
petitioner possesses teaching experience as
envisaged under Rule-4, however, the
impugned
circular
has
been
issued
specifying teaching experience to be
possessed in the capacity of Assistant
Teacher/ Head Master, which is not
envisaged under the Rules, 1978, as
amended in the year 2019.

15.
Learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioners contends that the condition
contained in the impugned circular requires
experience in the capacity of Assistant
Teacher// Head Master though it is not
envisaged
under
Clause-4
of
the
Government Order dated 19.02.2021. There
exists
no
rational
justification
for
incorporating
a
further
condition
of
experience having been required in the
capacity of Assistant Teacher/ Head Master
by prescribing a format in which the
experience certificate is required to be
submitted as per Rule-4 of the Rules, 1978,
as amended in the year 2019, as well as
Clause 4 of the Government Order dated
19.02.2021.

16.
Learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioners
further
contends
that
incorporating
additional
condition
by
specifying
a
format
of
experience
certificate notified in the circular dated
03.11.2025 amounts to a change in the
rules of the game in the midst of the
selection proceedings, for which there
exists neither any rational justification nor
any authority of law.

17. Placing reliance on a judgement of
a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Sadanand Singh v. State of U.P.
Thru Secy & Ors.4, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the claim of the
12 All. Km. Dimple Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
275
petitioners cannot be excluded en masse in
absence of any specific stipulation as to
teaching experience being in the capacity
of Assistant Teacher. Placing reliance on
another judgement of a Coordinate Bench
of this Court dated 15.07.2010 passed in
the case of Dr. Deepak Bhatiya & Others
v. State of U.P. & Others5, learned
counsel for the petitioners contends that
part time instructors (petitioners) cannot be
excluded en masse only on the basis of not
possessing teaching experience as Assistant
Teacher as per the prescribed qualification
i.e., only five years teaching experience
which requires no specification, being that
of possessing experience as an Assistant
Teacher.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioners
further submits that the specification of
requirement of experience as an Assistant
Teacher in the required format, is an
administrative direction which has been
supplemented in an arbitrary manner,
wrongly interpreting Rule-4 of the Rules,
1978, as amended in the year 2019.

19. Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned
Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Sri
Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for the
State submits that the person to be appointed
as Teacher in a Primary/Upper Primary
School
must
possess
the
minimum
qualifications as per the provisions of
notification of the NCTE dated 23.08.2010,
as amended on 29.07.2011. He further
submits that the said qualifications have also
been
incorporated
in
the U.P. Basic
Education (Teachers) Services Rules, 1981
and U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior
High Schools) (Recruitment And Conditions
of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978.

20. It has further been contended by
learned Chief Standing Counsel that under
the Schedule to the RTE Act, 2009, the
post of Teacher is distinct from that of
Instructor. For Classes 1st to 5th in the said
Schedule, there is no requirement for
appointment of any part-time instructor. On
the other hand, for Classes 6th to 8th where
the number of students in a school is less
than 100, there is likewise no requirement
for appointment of any part time instructor
and in Junior High Schools where the
number of students exceeds 100, apart from
a full time head teacher, Part Time
Instructors
for
the
subjects
of
Art
Education, Health and Physical Education
and Work Education are to be appointed,
therefore, Part Time Instructors constitues a
separate category of posts which is clearly
distinct from the post of a Teacher and
even a part time instructor has not been
recognised
as
a
Teacher
under
the
provisions of the RTE Act, 2009.

21.
He next
contends
that
the
appointment of the part time instructors in
the State of U.P. was made on a contractual
basis in terms of the Government order
dated 31.01.2013, wherein Clause 1(7) of
the said Government Order prescribes the
minimum educational qualifications for
appointment on the post of Part Time
Instructor,
namely,
High
School,
Intermediate,
Graduation
and
a
Professional Degree/Diploma in the related
subject. The said qualifications are entirely
different from the qualifications which is
required for appointment on the post of
Teacher for which a two-year Diploma in
Elementary Education known as B.T.C.
along
with
T.E.T.
Certificate
are
mandatory, while for appointment on the
post of Part Time Instructor, the candidate
was not required to possess the said
minimum qualifications, thus, a part-time
instructor is entirely different from a
Teacher and also lacks the minimum
276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
qualifications for being appointed as
Assistant Teacher/ Headmaster, therefore,
the work experience as a part-time
instructor cannot be counted equivalent to
the teaching experience of an Teacher
appointed under the provisions of RTE Act,
2009. Even the duties of Teachers as
defined under Section 24 of the RTE Act,
2009 are entirely different from those of a
part time instructor, hence by no stretch of
imagination, it can be said that the part time
instructors were working at par with that of
teacher.

22. It is further contended by learned
counsel for the State that circular dated
3.11.2025 and the format provided therein
which has been prescribed by the authority
is in consonance with Rule 4(2) of Rule,
1978 (Seventh Amendment) Rules, 2019
and there is no conflict between them.
Since the part-time instructors were not
appointed against the post of teachers,
therefore, they cannot take any benefit of
their
work
discharged
as
part-time
instructors for being appointed to the post
of Headmaster as regards the teaching
experience of minimum five years is
required as per the Rule 4(2) of the Rules,
1978 (Seventh Amendment) Rules, 2019.

23.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents contends that a Division Bench
of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
(A) No. 64307 of 20156, by judgment and
order dated 12.09.2025 has observed that
when
Rules
contemplate
teaching
experience for a specified period, it means
that experience must be in a post held for
full time. The operative portion of the said
order is as under:

"40.
As
a
Guest
Lecturer,
petitioner was required to attend assigned
lectures. For each lecture prescribed
amount was payable. As per G.O. dated
4.7.1998, Rs. 150/- per lecture was payable,
subject to maximum payment of Rs. 3000/-
per month. Meaning thereby, no person
could have been engaged to deliver more
than 20 lectures in a month. Petitioner
actually delivered 1307 lectures in a period
of about 6 years i.e. about 18 lectures per
month were delivered by him. It is not
pleaded anywhere in the entire writ petition
that a Lecturer regularly appointed in a
Medical College is supposed to deliver
only 18 or 20 lectures in a month and not
more than that. It is also not pleaded that
teaching work of a regularly appointed
"Lecturer" is confined only to deliver
lecturers and nothing more than that. When
experience is talked in terms of "period", it
cannot be equated with certain number of
Lectures rendered in certain period for the
reason that such an interpretation if
accepted, even if a Guest Lecturer may
have delivered or engaged for delivering
one or two lectures in a month but has
continued so engaged for a length of time,
he can also claim to have gained requisite
"Teaching Experience". This interpretation
would be clearly a travesty and mockery to
the purpose of which requirement of
"Teaching Experience" has been provided.
When
Rules
contemplate
"Teaching
Experience" of a particular period, it means
that experience must be in a post held for
full time. Experience acquired by rendering
requisite "Teaching work" which a regular
teacher is required to perform. It cannot be
equated with occasional or fortuitous
engagement of a person to deliver lectures
otherwise it would also amount to treating
unequals as equal. Moreover, requirement
under advertisement is consistent with
requirement of such "experience" under
Regulations, 2013. We are inclined to give
an
interpretation
in
favour
of
the
qualification
advertised
and
not
as
12 All. Km. Dimple Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
277
contemplated by petitioner. Hence it cannot
be said that petitioner has been wrongly
held
ineligible
for
consideration
for
appointment to the post of Principle SHMC
pursuant to advertisement under challenge."

24. The learned Chief Standing
Counsel further contends that once the parttime instructors were not working on the
posts of Teachers either part time or full
time, therefore, any interpretation of
expression
'teaching
experience'
as
mentioned in Rule 4(2) of the Rules of
1978 would amount to treating unequals as
equal and would be violative of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India.

25. I have heard Mr. Ashok Khare,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Siddharth Khare, Mr. Navneet Kumar
Srivastava, learned Advocate holding brief
of Mr. Chandan Kumar Chaturvedi, learned
counsel for the petitioners, and Mr.
Abhishek
Srivastava,
learned
Chief
Standing
Counsel
assisted
by
Mr.
Shailendra
Singh,
learned
Standing
Counsel appearing for the State.

26. The petitioners claim to be
considered for recruitment to the posts of
Headmaster /Assistant Teacher in Junior
High Schools notified by the Government
order dated 19.02.2021, wherein it is
stipulated that the selection/recruitment
will be in accordance with Rule-10 of the
Rules of 1978, as amended on 04.12.2019.
The condition stipulated in the said
Government order for the selection on the
post of Headmaster requires five years
teaching
experience
as
an
Assistant
Teacher.
Relevant
part
of
the
said
Government order is being reproduced
herein below:

"प्रधानाध्यापक प्रधानाध्यापक के पि पर चयन हेतु
िो प्रश्न प्रश्न होंगे । प्रिम प्रश्न पत्र 150 अिंकों का वही प्रश्न पत्र होगा
जो हायक अध्यापक हेतु भनधााररत प्रश्न पत्र होगा। उक्त प्रश्न पत्र
 हायक अध्यापक / प्रधानाध्यापक िोनों पिों हेतु अभनवाया होगा
क्योंभक हायक अध्यापक के पिों पर चयन हेतु 05 वर्ा हायक
अध्यापक के रूप में अध्यापन अनुिव की अभनवायाता है । अत्तः
प्रधानाध्यापक के पि पर भनयुक्त होने वािे अभ्यभिायों को भशक्षा
भविाग े म्बभन्धत भवभिन्न अभधभनयमों, भनयमों, शा नािेशों,
भशक्षा भविाग े म्बभन्ध ाात गभठत भवभिन्न आयोगों / भमभतयों
एविं उनकी िंस्तुभतयों, भशक्षा नीभतयों के म्बन्ध में भविागीय
कायाकमों तिा योजनाओिं एविं प्रबिंधन के िंििा में िी ज्ञान होना
अभनवाया है ।..."

27. The Clause-4 of the impugned
circular dated 03.11.2025 requires the
candidates
selected
in
the
written
examination to fill up application forms.
Clause-4 of the circular is quoted below:

"4. अभ्यिी द्वारा भज भवर्य में अशा कीय
 हायता प्राप्त जूभनयर हाईस्कूि हायक अध्यापक चयन परीक्षा वर्ा
2021 ( िंशोभधत परीक्षा परीिाम भिनाूँक 06.09.2022)
उत्तीिा की गयी है को केवि एक ही आवेिन पत्र िरना होगा ।

यभि भक ी अभ्यिी द्वारा हायक अध्यापक जूभनयर
हाईस्कूि चयन परीक्षा वर्ा 2021 में हायक अध्यापक एविं
प्रधानाध्यापक िंशोभधत परीक्षा पररिाम भिनाूँक 06.09.2022
द्वारा उत्तीिा की गयी है, को पृिक-पृिक हायक अध्यापक एविं
प्रधानाध्यापक का ऑनिाइन आवेिन पत्र िरना होगा ।"

28. The Clause-10 of the aforesaid
circular
prescribes
eligibility
for
application, which reads thus:

"10-आवेदन हेतु पात्रतााः

(i)-शैहिक/प्रहशिर् अहथता- उत्तर प्रिेश मान्यता
प्राप्त बेभ क स्कूि (जूभनयर हाईस्कूि) (अध्यापकों की िती और
 ेवा की शतें) भनयमाविी-1978 ( ातवािं िंशोधन) भनयमाविी-
2019 में उभल्िभखत न्यूनतम शैभक्षक अहाता एविं प्रभशक्षि अहाता
भनयम-4 के अनु ार होगी ।
278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

29. Rule-4 of the Rules, 1978, as
amended in 2019, mentions minimum
qualification, which is as follows:

"4. Amendment of Rule 4.......

4. Minimum qualification --- (1)
The minimum qualifications for the post of
Assistant Teacher of a recognised Junior
High School shall be a Graduation Degree
from a recognised University by U.G.C.
and a teachers training course recognized
by the State Government or National
Council for Teacher Education as follows--
-

Two year Diploma in Elementory
Education (by whatever name called)

Or

Graduation with at least 50%
marks and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.)

Or

Basic
Teaching
Certificate
(B.T.C.)

Or

Four year Degree in Elementory
Education (B.El.Ed.)

Or

Four year B.A./B.Sc. Ed. or B.A.
Ed./B.Sc.Ed.

Or

B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50%
marks and 1 year B.Ed. (Special Education)

And

Teacher Eligibility Test (Upper
Primary Level) passed conducted by the
State Government or by the Government of
India.

(2) The minimum qualification
for the appointment to the post of
Headmaster of a recognized schools shall
be as follows---

(a) a graduation degree from a
recognized University or an equivalent
examination recognised as such;

(b) a teacher's training course
recognised by the State Government or
National Council for Teacher Education as
follows---

Two year Diploma in Elementory
Education (by whatever name called)

Or

Graduation with at least 50%
marks and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.)

Or

Basic
Teaching
Certificate
(B.T.C.)

Or

Four year Degree in Elementory
Education (B.El.Ed.)

Or

Four year B.A./B.Sc. Ed. or B.A.
Ed./B.Sc. Ed.
Or

B.A.M.Sc. with at least 50%
marks and 1 year B.Ed. (Special Education)
12 All. Km. Dimple Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
279
And

Teacher Eligibility Test (Upper
Primary Level) passed conducted by the
State Government or by the Government of
India.

And

Five years teaching experience in
a recognized Junior High School or Senior
Basic School of Basic Education Board."

30. For the appointment as a Teacher
in Primary / Upper Primary School, a
candidate must possess the minimum
qualification as prescribed under the
notification issued by the National Council
for Teacher Education7 dated 23.08.2010,
as amended on 29.07.2011. The said
qualifications have also been incorporated
in the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education
(Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 read with
the Rules, 1978. As per the Schedule
pertaining to Sections 19 and 25 of the
RTE Act, 2009, the norms and standards
for such schools are prescribed where parttime instructors are to be appointed, the
same mentions as follows:

1.
Number
of
teachers
:
Norms and Standards

(a) For first
class to fifth
class
Admitted
children

Number
of
teachers

Up to Sixty

Two

Between
sixty-one to
ninety

Three

Between
Ninety-one
to
one
hundred and
twenty

Four

Between
One
hundred and
Five
twenty-one
to
two
hundred

Above One
hundred and
fifty
children

Five plus one
Headteacher

Above Two
hundred
children

Pupil-Teacher
Ratio
(excluding
Head-teacher)
shall
not
exceed forty.

(b) For sixth
class to eighth
class
(1) At least one teacher per
class so that there shall be at
least one teacher each for-

 (i)
Science
and
Mathematics;

 (ii) Social Studies;

 (iii) Languages.

(2) At least one teacher for
every thirty-five children.

(3)
Where
admission
of
children
is
above
one
hundred-

 (i) a full time headteacher;

 (ii) part time instructors
for-

 (A) Art Education;

 (B)
Health
and
Physical Education;

 (C)
Work
Education.

31. As per the afore-quoted Schedule
of the RTE Act, 2009 no part time
instructor is required for Classes 1 to 4 as
well as for Classes 6 to 8, where the
number of students is less than 100. It
would be apt to refer the qualification for
appointment of part time instructors as
provided
under
Clause-3
of
the
Government
Order
dated
31.01.2013,
which reads thus:
280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"3. अंशकाहलक अनुदेशकों की शैहिक
अहथता-उपरोक्त तीनों भवर्यों के अिंशकाभिक अनुिेशकों की िंभविा
पर तैनाती हेतु शैभक्षक अहाता भनम्नवत भनधााररत की गई है-

(अ) शैहिक अहथता-कला हशिा (Art
Education)---

किा भशक्षा हेतु अिंशकाभिक अनुिेशकों की शैभक्षक
अहाता भनम्नवत होगी-

इण्टरमीभडएट किा भवर्य के ाि तिा बी.ए.

अिवा

ड्राइिंग अिवा पेंभटिंग के ाि बी.ए.

अिवा

इण्टरमीभडएट के ाि िारत में भवभध द्वारा ीभपत
भक ी भवश्वभवद्यािय अिवा मान्यता प्राप्त िंस्िानों द्वारा प्रित्त किा
में भवशर् उपाभध अिवा भडप्िोमा ।

(ब) शैहिक अहथता-स्वास््य एवं शारीररक हशिा
(Health & Physical Education)--

स्वास्थ्य एविं शारीररक भशक्षा हेतु अिंशकाभिक
अनुिेशकों की शैभक्षक अहाता भनम्नवत होगी-

(1) स्नातक तिा

(2) राज्य रकार द्वारा मान्यता प्राप्त व्यायाम भशक्षा
में भडप्िोमा भडप्िोमा अिवा उ के अिवा िारत में भवभध द्वारा
स्िाभपत भक ी भवश्वभवद्यािय द्वारा प्रित्त व्यायाम भशक्षा में उपाभध
 मकक्ष कोई अन्य योग्यता ।

(स) शैहिक अहथता-कायथ हशिा (Work
Education)--

काया भशक्षा (Work Education) में 04
भवर्य िमशः कम्प्यूटर भशक्षा, गृह भशल्प एविं म्बभन्धत किा,
किा, उद्यान भवज्ञान एविं फि िंरक्षि तिा कृभर् भवर्य प्राभवधाभनत
है। काया भशक्षा के उक्त 04 भवर्यों में े प्रभत भवद्यािय एक ही
भवर्य का चयन करते हुए म्बभन्धत भवर्य के एक अिंशकाभिक
अनुिेशक की भनयुभक्त भवद्यािय में की जायेगी। भशक्षा के क्षेत्र में
वतामान पररपेक्ष्य को दृभष्टगत रखते हुए जनपि में कम्प्यूटर भशक्षा के
भिए 35 प्रभतशत, गृह भशक्षा एविं म्बभन्धत किा के भिए 35
प्रभतशत, उद्याि भवज्ञान एविं फि िंरक्षि के भिए 15 प्रभतशत तिा
कृभर् भवर्य के भिए 15 प्रभतशत भवद्याियों में भवर्यवार
अिंशकाभिक अनुिेशकों का चयन कराया जायेगा ।

(i)
कम्प्यूटर
हशिा
(Computer
Education)--

कम्प्यूटर भशक्षा के अिंशकाभिक अनुिेशकों को उन्ही
भवद्याियों हेतु चयभनत भकया जायेगा जो कम्प्यूटर ऐडेड िभनिंग े
आच्िाभित होंगे तिा भजनमें नामािंकन 100 े अभधक होगा ।
कम्प्यूटर के अनुिेशकों हेतु शैभक्षक अहाता भनम्नवत होगी-

बी.ए . ी. इन कम्प्यूटर ाइन्
अिवा

बी. ी.ए.
अिवा

DOEACC "A" िेभवि को ा के ाि स्नातक

(ii) गृहहशल्प एवं सम्पबहन्धत कला-

गृहभशल्प हेतु अिंशकाभिक अनुिेशकों की शैभक्षक
अहाता भनम्नवत होगी-

गृह भवज्ञान (होम ाइन् ) या गृह अिाशास्त्र (होम
इकनोभमक् ) या घरेिू भवज्ञान (डोमेभस्टक ाइन् ) या गृहकिा
(होम आटा) में स्नातक ।

(iii) उद्यान हवज्ञान एवं फलसंरिर्-

बी.ए . ी. कृभर् के ाि फि िंरक्षि को भवशेर्
भडप्िोमा ।

(iv) कृहि हशिा-

बी.ए . ी. कृभर् ।"

32. Qualification for being appointed
as Assistant Teacher in such schools, is
12 All. Km. Dimple Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
281
governed by the Rules, 1978, wherein
Rule-5 envisages the eligibility, which is as
follows:

"5. Eligibility for appointment.
- No person shall be appointed as
Headmaster
or
Assistant
Teacher
in
substantive capacity in any recognized
school, unless -

(a) he possesses the minimum
qualifications prescribed for such posts;

(b) he is recommended for such
appointment by the Selection Committee."

33. The Rules of 1978, as amended,
were enacted to regulate recruitment and
conditions of service of teachers in Junior
High Schools, including appointment to the
post of Headmaster, which is a promotional
post
carrying
academic
as
well
as
administrative responsibilities., Rule-4 of
the Rules 1978 as amended on 2019,
prescribes the minimum qualifications as
already quoted above. In view thereof, for
appointment to the post of Assistant
Teacher, the candidate must possess a
graduation degree from a University
recognized
by
the
University
Grant
Commission8 along with a teacher training
course recognized by the State Government
or the National Council for Teacher
Education and the minimum qualification
for appointment to the post of Headmaster
includes a graduation degree from a
recognized University or an equivalent
qualification recognized as such and
teachers training course recognized by the
State Government or the National Council
for
Teacher
Education
and
Teacher
Eligibility Test (Upper Primary Level)
conducted by the State Government or the
Government of India as well as minimum 5
years
of
teaching
experience
in
a
recognized Junior High School or Senior
Basic School of the Basic Education Board.

34. A harmonious and purposive
interpretation of the Rules makes it
abundantly
clear
that
the
teaching
experience contemplated therein must be
experience gained as a duly appointed
teacher in a recognized Junior High School
or Senior Basic School, forming part of the
regular teaching cadre. The post of
Headmaster being the academic head of the
institution, the required experience which
cannot be construed to include experience
gained in any casual, part-time, honorary,
or non-cadre capacity.

35. The question for consideration in
the instant case is whether, for appointment
to the post of Headmaster, the teaching
experience must mandatorily be experience
gained in the post of Assistant Teacher
alone, or whether 'teaching experience'
simplicitor including experience acquired
as a part-time instructor can be treated as
valid experience for the purpose of
eligibility.

36. As per the Rules, 1978, as
amended from time to time, the post of
Headmaster is a promotional/selection post
requiring a prescribed minimum period of
teaching
experience
in
a
recognized
institution. Said Rules consciously employ
the expression "teaching experience" in the
context of regular teachers appointed
against sanctioned posts and governed by
the statutory service conditions. From a
plain reading of the Rules, 1978, it is
evident that part-time instructors do not
constitute a cadre of teachers under the said
Rules.
The
minimum
educational
qualifications, mode of engagement, tenure,
and nature of duties of part-time instructors
are fundamentally different from those of
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Assistant Teachers appointed under the said
Rules. Part-time instructors are engaged
only for Classes 6 to 8, that too subject to
student strength exceeding 100, and are not
appointed for Classes 1 to 4 at all. Their
engagement is thus contingent, limited, and
need-based, lacking the attributes of a
regular statutory appointment.

37. It is well settled that eligibility
conditions prescribed under the statutory
recruitment rules must be strictly construed
and scrupulously followed. Neither the
appointing authority nor the court can
dilute, relax, or substitute the essential
qualifications
unless
such
power
is
expressly
conferred
by
the
rules
themselves.
The
purpose
behind
prescribing teaching experience for the post
of Headmaster is to ensure administrative
efficiency,
academic
leadership,
and
familiarity with institutional responsibilities
acquired through regular service.

38. In the case of P.M. Latha and
another v. State of Kerala and others9,
the Supreme Court has held that when
statutory
rules
prescribe
specific
qualifications, the same cannot be relaxed
on
equitable
considerations,
and
appointments made contrary thereto are
unsustainable in law. Similarly, in the case
of
Yogesh
Kumar
and
others
v.
Government of NCT Delhi and others10,
it has been held that experience must be of
the nature and character contemplated by
the rules, and experience gained in any
other capacity cannot be treated as
equivalent unless the rules so provide.

39. Applying the aforesaid principles
to the facts of the present case, it is evident
that if the recruitment rules specifically
require teaching experience as an Assistant
Teacher in regular service, experience
acquired merely as a part-time instructor
lacking the attributes of permanency,
administrative responsibility, and regular
academic engagement cannot be treated as
valid compliance with the eligibility
criteria. To hold otherwise would amount
to
rewriting
the
rules,
which
is
impermissible in law.

40. However, where the rules use the
expression 'teaching experience' without
any restrictive qualification as to the nature
of appointment or cadre, and where the
duties
discharged
by
the
candidate
demonstrably involve regular teaching
functions comparable to those of an
Assistant Teacher, such experience may be
considered, subject to strict proof and rulebased interpretation.

41. It is a settled principle that
eligibility
conditions
prescribed
by
statutory rules must be strictly construed
and strictly satisfied. The Apex Court in the
case of P. Mahendran and others v.