Supreme Court Stays Allahabad HC's Verdict Of New Selection List For 69,000 UP Assistant Teachers

The Apex court also stayed the HC verdict setting aside the selection lists of assistant teachers issued by the state authorities in June 2020 and January 2022, which included 6,800 candidates.

While putting on hold the high court’s verdict, a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra also issued notices to the state government and others including the secretary of the UP Basic Education Board on a plea filed by Ravi Kumar Saxena and 51 others.

The Apex court said it will accord a final hearing in the matter and asked the counsel for the parties involved to file short written notes not exceeding seven pages.

The bench said it will fix the plea for hearing in the week commencing September 23.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the Uttar Pradesh government.

The high court, in August, directed the state government to prepare a fresh selection list for the appointment of 69,000 assistant teachers in the state.

A division bench of the high court had issued the order while disposing of 90 special appeals filed by Mahendra Pal and others challenging a single-judge order of March 13 last year.

The high court had directed that while preparing the new selection list, any adverse impact on the currently working assistant teachers should be mitigated by allowing them to complete the ongoing academic session. This is intended to prevent disruption in the students' education, it had said.

The division bench of the high court had also revised the earlier order and said reserved category candidates who qualify for the general category merit list should be migrated to that category.

The high court had upheld the single-judge's decision to cancel the January 5, 2022 selection list of 6,800 candidates belonging to the reserved category.

The division bench had instructed the state government and other authorities concerned to complete the process of issuing a new selection list within three months.

The high court was hearing plea against the single judge's decision which contended that the reservation provided by the state in the selection of 69,000 teachers was not accurate and questioned the validity of the appointment of 6,800 teachers.

The single judge bench had ruled that candidates who benefited from reservations in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) should not be considered under the unreserved category, even if they scored the cut-off marks stipulated for the general category candidates.

However, the division bench later clarified that such candidates should be migrated to the general category if they meet the merit criteria.