These Litigations Appear to Be Luxury Litigations: Allahabad High Court Imposes Cost on Over 6400 Petitioners Seeking Revival of TET-Based Selection Process

Allahabad High Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by over 6,400 petitioners led by Sunil Kumar Yadav, seeking the revival of the 2012 selection process for Assistant Teachers based on the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET)-2011 results. In a strongly worded judgment, the Court, presided over by Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, held that the petitions were not only devoid of merit but also amounted to a waste of judicial time, categorizing them as “luxury litigations.”

The petitioners, comprising candidates who had qualified the TET (Primary Level) Examination-2011, challenged the inaction of the State Government in proceeding with the selection process under the Advertisement dated 7.12.2012. They also sought the reevaluation of OMR sheets, cancellation of candidatures involving use of whiteners, and the quashing of TET results declared in 2011 and 2015.  

Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Shiv Kumar Pathak & Ors., (2018) 12 SCC 595, the petitioners argued that there was no express bar against continuing the recruitment under the said advertisement. They pressed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the State to resume the selection.

The crux of the matter revolved around the interpretation of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shiv Kumar Pathak, where it was clarified that although the 15^th Amendment to the 1981 Rules and the selection based on the TET-2011 were legally valid, the subsequent circumstances required the issuance of a fresh advertisement for remaining vacancies.  

• “Having regard to the entirety of circumstances, we are not inclined to disturb the same. We make it clear that the State is at liberty to fill up the remaining vacancies in accordance with law after issuing a fresh advertisement.” (Shiv Kumar Pathak, para 19)

The Allahabad High Court unambiguously concluded that:  

• “Effectively, the Supreme Court has passed a direction that selection in terms of advertisement dated 7.12.2012 shall not proceed further.”

The Court further reiterated that:

• “Prayer of the petitioners being contrary to the observations and direction passed by Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak

(supra), are therefore, rejected.”

With regard to the other prayers concerning re-evaluation and cancellation of certain TET results, the Court stated that those issues too had been conclusively settled by the apex court and could not be reopened.  

“Luxury Litigations”: Cost Imposed for Wasting Judicial Time  

In a rare but significant move, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 100 on each petitioner, highlighting the frivolous nature of the litigation:  

• “These litigations appear to be luxury litigations since issues raised… have already been settled by Supreme Court… still they have filed present writ petitions.”

Responsibility for the payment of the cost was assigned to the deponents of the affidavits filed in support of each petition. The Court ordered that the costs be deposited with the High Court Bar Association within one week, warning that the Registrar General would initiate recovery proceedings in case of default.

The Allahabad High Court’s decision reaffirms the sanctity of precedent and the finality of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, especially in matters affecting large-scale public employment. It sends a strong message against repetitive litigation and underscores the importance of judicial discipline and responsibility.

Date of Decision: April 4, 2025