Selection Process for Assistant Teachers in Uttar Pradesh: Court’s Final Judgment

The selection process for Assistant Teachers in Uttar Pradesh has seen a significant development with the Supreme Court of India issuing its final judgment. This landmark decision will have far-reaching implications on teacher appointments in the state. Stay tuned to learn more about the court’s ruling and the outcomes for the education sector in Uttar Pradesh.


  • State constituted a high powered committee on 10 April, 2012, which gave its report on 1 May, 2012.
  • 12,091 candidates were found eligible for appointment subject to verification of antecedents.
  • Advertisement for appointment of trainee teachers in primary schools was issued on 30 November, 2011.
  • Irregularities in the selection process were raised by the Contempt Petitioners.
  • Recommendation to prohibit candidates involved in irregularities/criminal activity from selection.
  • Rules were amended to bring them in line with NCTE guidelines.
  • Cancellation of previous advertisements and issuance of fresh ones due to alleged money influence in results.
  • Out of 12,091 candidates, only 391 got appointed due to various reasons.
  • Opportunities given to candidates for counseling and grievance redressal.
  • TET held on 13 November, 2011, with result declared on 25 November, 2011.
  • Challenges to amendments citing inconsistency with NCTE guidelines.
  • RTE Act lays down qualifications and terms for teachers.
  • Illustration provided highlighting anomalies in selection process based on age and marks criteria.
  • Adjournment of the matter for further investigation into similar cases.
  • State Government incorrectly calculated the figure of 66,655 for teacher appointments.
  • 12,091 candidates were found eligible for appointment but not all were appointed.
  • Candidates who scored above 70% in General Category and 65% in Reserved Category were to be appointed as per court orders.
  • State was given liberty to fill remaining vacancies after issuing a fresh advertisement.
  • Weightage to TET marks was not mandatory as per NCTE guidelines.
  • 66,655 teachers were already appointed based on interim orders and appointments were not to be disturbed.
  • State directed to appoint candidates without malpractices and with 70% marks in TET.
  • Direction given to appoint candidates meeting specific criteria within six weeks.
  • Appeals allowed by Division Bench against previous judgment.
  • State to conclude selection process as per advertisement dated November 30, 2011.

Also Read: Legal Analysis: Sheikh Noorul Hassan vs. Nahakpam Indrajit Singh – Permissibility of Subsequent Pleading in Election Petition Proceedings


  • Fresh appointments were made after October, 2016.
  • The State Government is called upon to provide details through an affidavit by a competent person.
  • The details required include district-wise break-up of candidates appointed by October, 2016 and any appointments made to candidates who did not meet the requirements set by the Court.
  • An affidavit of compliance was filed by Ms. Renuka Kumar, Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Basic Education, Government of U.P.

Also Read: CRPF Act: Validity of Rule 27 for Compulsory Retirement – Case of Head Constable vs. CRPF


  • Mr. Pallav Sishodia, senior advocate for the State, mentioned that the affidavit dated 01.10.2016 was not contested by any candidates
  • No grievances were raised by the candidates at that time
  • Mr. Sishodia noted that the grievance was brought up over a year after the matter was disposed of in July 2017
  • The number of candidates appointed would be 58135 plus the number drawn from the list of 12091 candidates.
  • As of 2.11.2015, 43777 candidates were already appointed and 15058 were undergoing training.
  • This would mean that by 2.11.2015, 58135 candidates were appointed or undergoing training.
  • The initial vacancy projection of 14640 on 2.11.2015 was refined to 12091 eligible candidates.
  • Out of the 12091 eligible candidates, only 391 were appointed.
  • The State Government could not have stated that 64257 persons were appointed if only 391 candidates were appointed.

Also Read: DAMEPL vs. DMRC: Curative Petition and Arbitral Award Restoration


  • Selection process for Assistant Teachers in Uttar Pradesh highlighted
  • Ad-hoc appointments made to fill vacancies
  • Concerns raised about candidates not meeting court’s requirements
  • Total vacancies, appointments, and ongoing processes mentioned
  • District-wise data provided for transparency
  • Timeline of selection process and court orders discussed
  • Emphasis on fulfilling vacancies to benefit student community
  • Criteria for TET marks and appointments outlined
  • Issue of unfilled vacancies addressed
  • Grievances raised and timings of complaints noted
  • The State Government’s process, in compliance with interim orders and final judgment, was deemed appropriate by the court.
  • Reasons for non-selection of candidates were made clear in the record since October 2016.
  • The State’s response was found to be clear and satisfactory.
  • Despite the response and review, no significant violations of court orders were found.
  • The court concluded that none of the orders passed were violated by the State, as claimed in the contempt petitions.


  • State authorities can check every illustration and see if candidates fall in the selection zone
  • Comprehensive report to be submitted
  • No case shall continue after this
  • Contempt petitions to be closed without interference
  • Report to be presented in the Court
  • Parties to remain present on the next hearing date


Case Number: CONMT.PET.(C) No.-001332-001360 / 2018

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *