HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14734 of 2025 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Dinesh Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri K. Shahi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5 and perused the record. The petitioner has preferred instant writ petition for a direction upon respondent authorities to pay salary of Headmistress to the petitioner as she has been working as Incharge Headmistress w.e.f. 19.05.2019 in Prathmik Vidyalaya Bazaha, Block Bhagwatpur, District Prayagraj, and pay all consequential benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for ventilation of her grievances, she has approached the authority concerned by moving representations. However, despite several representations moved by the petitioner, no heed has yet been paid. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 4 submits that the controversy regarding payment of the aforesaid has already been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.652 of 2024 (Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board and 2 Others vs. Tripurari Dubey and 3 Others) decided on 30.04.2025. The aforesaid order has been affirmed by the Apex Court by dismissal of the Special Leave to Appeal, vide order dated 13.08.2025 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 22427 of 2025. He has also relied upon Paragraph Nos. 214 to 218 of the judgement passed by the Apex Court in the case of Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912, wherein the requirement of TET qualification has been discussed with an observation that in-service teachers Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Balwant Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kushmondeya Shahi Smt Vijay Laxmi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) (irrespective of the length of their service) would be required to qualify the TET to continue in service. Learned counsel for the respondents further contends that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as being prayed for, however, in case a fresh representation is given by the petitioner before the District Basic Education Officer, the same will be decided in accordance with law. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case set up on behalf of the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of by providing that the petitioner may make fresh application/representation, ventilating her grievances, supported by such documents, as may be advised, before the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj, within three weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order. On such representation being made, District Basic Education Officer shall make all endeavours to consider and decide the same, strictly in accordance with law, keeping in mind the directions issued in Tripurari Dubey (supra), by means of a reasoned and speaking order, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. September 25, 2025 DS WRIA No. 14734 of 2025 2 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad