2025:JHHC:34609 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6121 of 2025 ------ 1. Manjur Alam, Aged about- 39 years, Son of Rashid Ansari, Resident Of- At- Vill- Raghuwadih, P.O- Sarsa, P.S- Palojori, District- Deoghar. 2. Md. Salamat Ansari, aged 39 years old, son of Md. Akbar Miya, resident of Village Makarkenda, P.O. Choudhary Nawadih, P.S. Palojori, District-Deoghar. 3. Md. Shamsher Ansari, Aged About-40 Years, Son Of - Md. Makshud Ansari, Resident Of Vill- Raghunathpur, P.O-Palojori, P.S- Palojori, District- Deoghar 4. Md. Samsher Alam, Aged About-39 Years, Son of Abdul Ansari, Resident Of - Vill- Angwali, P.O- Asna, P.S- Palojori, District- Deoghar 5. Md. Imran Ansari, Aged About-34 Years, Son of Ahmad Ali Resident of Vill- Gadi, P.O- Palojori, P.S- Palojori, District- Deoghar 6. Dinesh Kumar Sen, Aged About- 38 Years, Son Of - Dinesh Kumar Sen, Resident Of-Vill- Bansbutiya, P.O- Bansbutiya, P.S- Palojori, District- Deoghar. … … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O & P.S. Dhurwa, District - Ranchi 3. The Director Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Department Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O & P.S. Dhurwa, District - Ranchi 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, At- Deoghar, P.O. & P.S.- Deoghar, District- Deoghar 5. The District Superintendent of Education Cum District Programme, Deoghar, At Deoghar, P.O. & P.S.- Deoghar, District- Deoghar 6. The Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council, At- Dhurwa, P.O & P.S. Dhurwa, District – Ranchi. … … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shubham Mishra, Advocate Mr. Gyandev Raj, Advocate For the State : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV For the JEPC : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate Mr. Raj Vardhan, AC ------ 04/ 20th November,2025 1. Heard the parties. 2. It is the grievance of the petitioners that though 2025:JHHC:34609 2 similarly situated para teachers have been re-instated in service but the petitioners have been left out. He submits that they filed a representation but the same has not yet been considered. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the petitioners did not possession the requite TET qualification, they were removed from service but now they have already passed TET. Thus, they need to be re-instated in service. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and JEPC submits that at the time of appointment, petitioners did not pass the TET Examination, thus, they were removed from service. The State admits that several other persons who were removed along with the petitioners have now been reappointed but no decision has yet been taken so far as these petitioners are concerned. 4. After hearing the parties, and perusing the records, I find that the petitioners and several other persons were appointed as Para Teachers. Admittedly, the petitioners and others were not TET qualified. Due to lack of the aforesaid qualification, the petitioners along with several other persons i.e., 1080 persons who were para teachers, were removed from service. Later on, many of the para teachers were re-inducted by virtue of the order passed by this Court but in spite of the fact that the petitioners have passed TET Examination in 2016, they were not re-inducted in service. After promulgation of the Right of Education Act, TET qualification became essential for being appointment as a teacher in private schools. In this case, admittedly, the petitioners were appointed before promulgation of Right to Education Act. Admittedly, at the time of appointment, the petitioners did not possess the said qualification, thus, they were removed. It is also now admitted by the parties that in 2016 they have passed the TET examination. 5. In recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust Vs. State of Maharashtra and others”, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph No. 217 has held that in-service teachers who have more than five years to retire, 2025:JHHC:34609 3 shall be under an obligation to qualify the TET within two years from the date of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court thus gives some relaxation to the in-service teachers who were without TET. 6. In the instant case, the approval for appointment of the petitioners was made on 29.03.2010 by the Block Education Committee, whereas the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act of 2009 (RTE Act) was brought in force w.e.f., 01.04.2010. Thus, the approval of appointment of the petitioners was prior to coming force of the aforesaid Act. Now since the petitioners has already passed the TET Examination and similarly situated teachers have already been re-appointed, I am of the opinion that the petitioners should also be similarly treated. Thus, I direct the respondents to take a decision on this, considering what has been held above and issue an appropriate order to the petitioners for re-inducting them in service. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 20th November, 2025 Sandeep, cp2