Supreme Court of India
Navin Kumar vs Union Of India on 28 August, 2024
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Pankaj Mithal, Sudhanshu Dhulia
1
REPORTABLE
2024 INSC 656 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) Nos………………………….of 2024
ARISING OUT OF DIARY No. 17948 OF 2024
NAVIN KUMAR & ORS. …PETITIONERS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. …RESPONDENTS
WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 10295 OF 2024
WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO(s). OF 2024
(ARISING OUT OF DIARY NO.20149 OF 2024)
WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO(s). OF 2024
(ARISING OUT OF DIARY NO.20848 OF 2024)
WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 13756 OF 2024
WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO(s). OF 2024
(ARISING OUT OF DIARY NO.36283 OF 2024)
WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO(s).
Signature Not Verified
OF 2024
(ARISING OUT OF DIARY NO.37276 OF 2024)
Digitally signed by
Ashwani Kumar
Date: 2024.09.04
16:13:02 IST
Reason:
2
ORDER
1. In Devesh Sharma v. Union of India1 (delivered on
11.08.2023), there was before us a challenge to the judgement
of the Rajasthan High Court dated 25.11.2021 where it was
held that for appointment of primary school teachers (i.e.,
teachers of Class I to Class V), the essential qualification is
D.El.Ed. (i.e., Diploma in Elementary Education) and not B.Ed.
(i.e., Bachelor in Education), and B.Ed. qualified candidates
were held to be disqualified.
2. Before the Rajasthan High Court, the National Council for
Teachers Education (hereinafter referred to as “NCTE”)
notification dated 28.06.2018, by which B.Ed. qualified
candidates were held eligible was, inter alia, under challenge.
In our judgment dated 11.08.2023, we have upheld the
Division Bench order of Rajasthan High Court and affirmed the
findings that the essential qualification for appointment as
primary school teachers is Diploma in Elementary Education
and not B.Ed. Consequently, the NCTE notification dated
28.06.2018 and the regulations made therein, by which B.Ed
was made a qualification, were quashed and set aside.
1
2023 INSC 704
3
3. The above judgment of Devesh Sharma (supra) was delivered
on 11.08.2023 and thereafter review applications,
clarifications, etc. kept coming up, mainly from such
candidates who were having B.Ed. qualification and were
selected and appointed by different States in the recent
selection process for primary school teachers. We had heard
all such applicants at length and clarified that such B.Ed.
qualified candidates who were selected and appointed prior to
our decision in Devesh Sharma (supra) i.e. prior to
11.08.2023, shall not be disturbed as there was a special
equity in their favour. Therefore, our judgement would be
prospective in nature, and will not disturb the appointments
of such candidates who had already been appointed prior to
the judgment in Devesh Sharma (supra) i.e. prior to
11.08.2023. This is what was clarified in our order dated
08.04.2024:
As it appears that a large number of candidates with
B.Ed. degree had already been appointed on the
basis of eligibility criteria specified by the
educational authorities, we do not think it to be
equitable to effect their removal. We, accordingly
hold that the judgment delivered by this Bench on
11th August, 2023 shall have prospective operation.
But prospective operation of this judgment shall be
only for those candidates who were appointed
without any qualification or conditions imposed by
any Court of Law to the effect that their appointment
4would be subject to final outcome of the case which
might have had been instituted by them and such
candidates were in regular employment without any
disqualification and were appointed in pursuance of
a notice of advertisement where B.Ed. was
stipulated to be valid qualification. Services of only
such candidates shall not be disturbed because of
this judgment. We make it clear that this benefit is
only for the candidates who were appointed prior to
the date our judgment was delivered, on 11th
August, 2023. Mere selection of such candidates or
their participation in the process will not entitle
them for a benefit under our present order.
…
We also make it clear that the directions contained
in this order shall not be confined to the applicant
state only and shall cover all cases which may be
pending in different judicial fora in any State or
Union territory on the same point of law.
(emphasis supplied)
After our clarifications, on 08.04.2024, there should not have
remained any doubts, yet clarification and review applications,
kept coming up in one form or the other which were all
dismissed. Now, in the present batch of petitions, the same
question has again come up before this Court, this time arising
out of a judgment of Chhattisgarh High Court, which has only
been passed following our order in Devesh Sharma (supra).
4. The High Court in its judgment dated 02.04.2024 declared all
such candidates, having B.Ed. qualification to be ineligible and
disqualified for selection to the post of primary school
5teachers, following the decision of this Court in Devesh
Sharma (supra).
5. Admittedly in the present case, the appointment orders in
favour of the B.Ed candidates were issued in September 2023
by the State of Chhattisgarh, that is after the date of our
judgement in Devesh Sharma (supra) which was delivered on
11.08.2023. We have already held in our order dated
08.04.2024 that such candidates cannot be given any relief.
6. Before the Chhattisgarh High Court, petitions were filed by
candidates holding Diploma in Elementary Education,
challenging the eligibility of B.Ed. candidates on the grounds
that they were not entitled to be appointed as primary school
teachers. In their defence the B.Ed. candidates had argued
that B.Ed. is one of the qualifications for appointment of
elementary school teachers under the applicable Rules i.e.,
Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and
Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019
(“2019 Rules”), and thus, they have the necessary
qualification.
7. All the same, apprised of the order of this Court in Devesh
Sharma (supra), the Division Bench of Chhattisgarh High
Court had passed an interim order on 21.08.2023 whereby the
6recruitment process was directed to be kept in abeyance as
regards B.Ed. candidates. This is what was said:
Considering the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and also considering the law
laid down by the Apex Court on the issue in question
passed in Civil Appeal No. 5068 of 2023 (Devesh
Sharma Vs. Union of India & Others decided on
11.08.2023), the further recruitment process with
regard to the candidates having B.Ed. qualification
for the post of Assistant Teachers shall be kept in
abeyance with immediate effect and further no final
decision would be taken by the respondents in
respect of such candidates till the next date of
hearing.
8. This interim order of High Court was then challenged by B.Ed.
candidates before this Court, where a Division Bench of this
Court passed the following order dated 29.08.2023:
In the meantime, taking into consideration that the
recruitment process which was in progress, is now
interrupted by the ad-interim order dated
21.08.2023 and the aspect ultimately to be
considered by the High Court is with regard to the
manner in which the judgment in C.A. No. 5068 of
2023 passed by this Court is to be construed, at this
stage interrupting the recruitment process would
not be justified.
Therefore, to the said extent, we hereby stay the
order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the High Court
and clarify that the recruitment process, which was
in progress prior to the date of the said interim order
passed by the High Court, shall continue and the
appointments, if any, made thereunder will however
remain subject to result of the consideration to be
made by the High Court in W.P.S No. 5788 of 2023.
7
The selected candidates shall be informed of the
same by the Appointing Authority concerned.
(emphasis supplied)
9. The above order of this Court has clarified that the selection
and appointment of B.Ed. candidates would be subject to the
final decision of the High Court in the writ petition. Later,
when they were given appointments, their Appointment Order
also clearly states that this appointment is subject to the
decision of Chhattisgarh High Court in the pending writ
petition. Ultimately, the petitions filed by the Diploma holders
(in Elementary Education) were allowed vide the impugned
judgement and the logical consequence of this is that the
service of teachers, with B.Ed. qualification, are liable to be
terminated. In the present batch of petitions, we have before
us these teachers with B.Ed. qualification whose
appointments have been quashed. The State of Chhattisgarh
is also before us challenging the impugned judgement and
order dated 02.04.2024 of the High Court.
10. One of the arguments of the learned senior counsel (Mr.
Shrivastava) for the petitioners before this Court is that this
Court in Devesh Sharma (supra) had opened a small window
for B.Ed. candidates who were called for selection as B.Ed. was
8
one of the qualifications in the 2019 Rules as also in the
notification of NCTE and till it was set aside such candidates
cannot be called as ineligible. All we had said in Devesh
Sharma (supra) was that since the law, making B.Ed. as
qualification, was not struck down by any Court (as was the
position in Rajasthan when recruitment to the post of teachers
were taking place in 2019) such candidates ought to have been
called at least. This is exactly what was said:
“Having made the above determination we, all the
same, are also of the considered opinion that the
State of Rajasthan was clearly in error in not
calling for applications from B.Ed. qualified
candidates, for the reasons that till that time
when such an advertisement was issued by the
Rajasthan Government, B.Ed. candidates were
included as eligible candidates as per the
statutory notification of NCTE, which was
binding on the Rajasthan Government, till it was
declared illegal or unconstitutional by the Court.”As we know when recruitment to the post of teachers was being
made in Rajasthan, B.Ed. was a qualification for teachers as
per the NCTE notification. The above observation made by us
was only to affirm the findings of the Rajasthan High Court
which had although held that B.Ed. was not a valid
“qualification” for primary teachers, yet cautioned that the
Government could not have ignored the notification of the
9NCTE till it was declared illegal by a Competent Court. That
was all. In Chhattisgarh, this was not the case. B.Ed.
qualified candidates were called by the State in the selection
process, yet as they were held to be non-qualified by a
judgment of this Court, which is the law now and by logic has
to be implemented, they were rightly held to be disqualified.
How does our observations in Devesh Sharma (supra) help
the petitioners, we simply fail to understand. This argument is
totally misconceived. B.Ed. is not a qualification for a teacher
in a Primary School. Moreover, this aspect has already been
clarified in the order dated 08.04.2024, where only such
candidates have been saved who were selected and appointed
prior to our order dated 11.08.2023 in Devesh Sharma
(supra). Since the petitioners in the present case were
appointed post 11.08.2023 and their appointments were also
subjected to the final outcome of the pending writ petition
before High Court, they cannot get any benefit. The completion
of the selection process prior to 11.08.2023 is not material.
What is important is the date of appointment which is certainly
after the cut-off date. They will stand disqualified, as they do
not have the essential qualification for appointment as primary
school teachers.
10
11. We have also gone through the 2019 Rules of Chhattisgarh.
In Rule 8 (II), the qualification of an Assistant Teacher reads as
under: –
“Rule 8 (II): Educational qualifications and
experience – The candidate must possess the
educational qualifications and experience as prescribed
for the service as shown in column (5) of Schedule III.
For Preliminary education, the prescribed qualification
will be applicable as per provisions of the Right to Free
and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.”Column 5 of Schedule III provides that the minimum
educational qualifications required for the post of teachers
shall be as per Annexure I of the Rules. This Annexure
prescribes the minimum qualification for Assistant Teacher as
follows:
“a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least
50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary
Education by whatever name known)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least
45% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary
Education (by whatever name known) in accordance
with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure)
Regulations, 2002
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least
50% marks and 4-year Bachelor of Elementary
Education (B.EL.Ed.)
OR
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least
5o% marks and 2-year Diploma in Education
(Special Education)
OR
11Graduation and 2-year Diploma in Elementary
Education (by whatever name known)
OR
Graduation with at least 50% marks and B.Ed.
qualification (graduate from the institution
recognised from NCTE) shall also be eligible for
appointment as teacher for classes 1 to 5. Provided
he / she undergoes, after appointment, a NCTE
recognised 6-month special programme in
Elementary Education.
And
(b) Passed the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be
conducted by the appropriate Government, in
accordance with the guidelines framed by NCTE for
this purpose.”
(emphasis supplied)The entire reliance of the petitioner is on the above provisions.
We have already seen that Rule 8(II) while prescribing the
qualifications of Assistant Teacher makes a reference to the
qualifications as given under the Right to Education Act, 2009.
Not only this, the aforesaid provision placing B.Ed. as a
qualification is again subsequent to the Notification of NCTE
dated 28.06.2018, which has already been quashed and set
aside by our judgement in Devesh Sharma (supra). Therefore,
by implication, qualification given in the Chhattisgarh Rules to
the extent it makes B.Ed. a qualification also cannot be
implemented, following the law laid down in Devesh Sharma
(supra).
12
12. In fact, we have been shown today an order of NCTE dated
04.09.2023 whereby the judgement in Devesh Sharma
(supra) was communicated to Chief Secretaries of all State
Governments for further appropriate action. In spite of this,
appointments were given to B.Ed. candidates which was illegal
and has now rightly been quashed, by the Chhattisgarh High
Court.
13. In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere with the
impugned judgement passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court.
14. Accordingly, all the Special Leave Petitions are hereby
dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
….…………………………………J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
……….……………………………J.
(PANKAJ MITHAL)
New Delhi
August 28, 2024