HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 6823 of 2026 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record. The petitioner has preferred instant writ petition for a direction upon respondent no. 3 - District Basic Education Officer, Mainpuri to consider the claim of the petitioner with regard to grant of fixation on the post of Officiating Headmaster w.e.f. 01.07.2013 till the date of his retirement i.e. 31.03.2018, and pay retiral dues and pension accordingly. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for ventilation of his grievance, the petitioner has approached the authority concerned by moving representation. However, despite several representations moved by the petitioner, no heed has yet been paid. Learned counsel for the respondents submit 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. 22472 of 2025. He has also relied upon paragraphs-214 to 218 of the judgment dated 01.09.2025 passed by the Apex Court in the case of Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912, wherein it has been categorically held that in-service teachers, (irrespective of the length of their service) would also be required to qualify the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to continue in service. Learned Standing Counsel also informs that the Government Order dated 14.10.2025 has been issued, according to which the petitioners are not entitled for the relief as prayed. The aforesaid Government Order dated 14.10.2025 is under challenge in Writ-A No.18154 of 2025 (Rajnish Mourya and 135 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others). However, they submit that in case a fresh representation is given by the petitioner before the respondent authority, the same may 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 his grievances, supported by such documents, as may be advised, before the respondent no.3 - District Basic Education Officer, Mainpuri, within three weeks from today along Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind Srivastava III Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Surendra Nath Srivastav .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) with a certified copy of this order. On such representation being made, respondent no.3 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. May 6, 2026 DS WRIA No. 6823 of 2026 2 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad