Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139408 Court No. - 52 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27660 of 2015 Petitioner :- Ritu Dixit Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ganesh Mani,Pawan Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shrawan Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Case is called out. None appears for the petitioners. 2. Learned Standing Counsel for the State is present. 3. The case is listed in the category of oldest pending cases in the cause list, for priority hearing. 4. A notice has also been placed on the notice board specifically, mentioning that "old cases up to the year 2022 shall be taken up in the first round itself. In case of non-appearance, matter shall be dismissed as infructuous or otherwise, and in the cases, where the cause of action still survives, the concerned advocates are expected to mark them accordingly in the cause list. Failure to do so, may result in its dismissal as infructuous" but, neither the counsel for the petitioners has appeared nor has the case been marked to indicate that the cause of action still survives. 5. Record shows that the present petition is of the year 2015 has been filed challenging the legality and validity of the Government Order dated 09.12.2014 and the modified Government Order dated 11.12.2014 to the extent it compels the Special BTC holders to go for fresh recruitment. Alternatively, it has also been prayed directing the respondent-Authority to provide appointment as well as stipend to the petitioner as mentioned in the Government Order dated 20.02.2004. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submits that the issue involved in the instant matter has already been settled in a Full Bench of this Court in Shiv Kumar Shama and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2013 (6) ADJ 310, wherein, it was categorically held that TET is the essential qualification for being appointed as Primary School Teachers. In another judgment in the case of Prabhakar Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2013(1)ADJ 651 (DB) wherein, a Division Bench of this Court was pleased to observe to the effect that the advertisement issued for inviting application for B.T.C. is not an advertisement under Rule 14 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, and, therefore, it cannot be said that the applications were invited for appointment as Assistant Teacher in 2004. After coming into force the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the TET has been made to be a necessary qualification, which the petitioner does not possess, therefore, not entitled for appointment. Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents in this backdrop submits that in view of the aforesaid judgments, the petitioner is not entitled the relief as prayed for. 7. In view of the above, this Court find substance in the arguments so advanced by learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents and the present writ petition is dismissed, accordingly. Order Date :- 14.8.2025 Sachin Digitally signed by :- SACHIN TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad