On August 12, 2025, a court hearing began at the Shaykhontohur Interdistrict Civil Court building in the capital regarding a lawsuit filed by a group of educators against the Ministry of Preschool and School Education. This was reported by Upl.uz.
Five native language and literature teachers from various regions of the country are demanding the annulment of the spring attestation results. They claim that numerous violations occurred during this process.
The case being reviewed by Judge Guli Shukrullaeva has attracted wide public attention. The plaintiffs are represented by lawyer Nazirjon Khotamjonov.
They are demanding a retake of the exam and compensation for moral damages from the Pedagogical Mastery Scientific and Practical Center under the Ministry, which is responsible. At the first court session, representatives of the ministry requested restrictions on press activities, asking that journalists be allowed to participate only as listeners and that photo and audio recordings be prohibited.
After hearing the initial evidence, the court decided to suspend the sessions until August 26 to collect the necessary documents for a comprehensive review of the case. This case is related to the attestation process, which is crucial in determining teachers' professional qualifications.
The attestation results determine whether a teacher attains the second, first, or highest category, which in turn sets their salary level. The category is granted for five years.
According to Sardor Rahimboev, head of the Department of Preschool and School Education, mandatory attestation is conducted once every five years, while voluntary attestations are held twice a year. This allows teachers the opportunity to advance their category ahead of schedule.
According to official ministry data, over 190,000 applications were submitted for the 2025 spring attestation campaign, with 177,600 teachers participating. More than 73,000 of them achieved successful results.
Over 5,000 teachers scored 86 points or higher, qualifying not only for the highest category but also for a 70% special salary bonus. However, according to the plaintiffs, the low scores they received were not due to a lack of knowledge but stemmed from systemic errors and violations.
The lawsuit lists nine main complaints. One of the most significant concerns involves technical malfunctions, with teachers reporting that computers and software frequently froze during the exam.
It was noted that after mandatory restarts within a short period, some participants' previously selected answers changed. Due to the indefinite suspension of the test process, participants were forced to remain in closed, unventilated rooms for hours, negatively affecting their mental state.
Another major complaint concerns the complexity of the test questions. Teachers believe that the number and difficulty of the questions did not correspond to the allotted time.
Some questions consisted of three to four parts, requiring 5-6 minutes to analyze and answer, making it difficult to successfully complete the test within the designated time.
Additionally, the plaintiffs are dissatisfied with the lack of transparency in the result determination process. Participants were not allowed to view their answers immediately after completing the test.
They argue that despite the test being conducted in two shifts, the technical capability to promptly display results existed but was not implemented. Among educators, there is significant concern about the potential leakage of exam materials on the internet.
On social media, sample questions appeared after the first shift.
