Telangana High Court dismisses petition on teachers eligibility test guidelines
The High Court, led by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, recently dismissed a writ petition challenging the guidelines issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) concerning the Telangana State Teacher Eligibility Test (TS-TET).
By LEGAL CORRESPONDENT
Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court, led by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, recently dismissed a writ petition challenging the guidelines issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) concerning the Telangana State Teacher Eligibility Test (TS-TET).
The writ petition had been filed by Arakula Yadaiah and 10 other petitioners, who argued that the guidelines violated their constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 16 by treating distinct categories of teachers equally in the recruitment process. Specifically, the petitioners contested Clause (iv)(c) of Paper-II in Guideline No. 7, which requires candidates to select either Mathematics/Science or Social Studies papers, even if they are language-specialist teachers. The petitioners, who hold bachelor’s degrees in Telugu literature, argued that this provision unfairly grouped language-specialist teachers with others, disadvantaging them in the recruitment process for teaching positions. Their counsel pointed out that the guidelines failed to recognize the specific qualifications and expertise of language teachers, particularly those applying for classes 6–8, as per The Telangana Direct Recruitment for the Post of Teachers (Scheme of Selection) Rules, 2023.
They contended that forcing language-specialist candidates to appear for unrelated papers infringed on their right to equal opportunity in public employment. Furthermore, it was noted that other states had modified similar guidelines to better accommodate language specialists. However, the bench, while considering the petition, emphasized the limited scope for judicial review in matters concerning educational guidelines, particularly when these aim to ensure competent teachers in primary and upper-primary education. The court held that both the NCTE and state authorities had the prerogative to determine the qualifications for teaching positions, and judicial interference could only be justified if the guidelines were found to be arbitrary or unreasonable. After examining the arguments, the bench found that the guidelines were neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional. It highlighted that the guidelines were designed to ensure a basic level of competency among all teachers, including a basic understanding of subjects like Mathematics/Science or Social Studies.
The bench concluded that the treatment of different categories of teachers in this context was not in violation of constitutional principles, and thus, dismissed the writ petition.
