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
 4

would 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

 5

teachers, 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

 6

recruitment 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

 9

NCTE 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
 11

Graduation 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