Lalit Mohan Arya v. State of Uttarakhand and others

Present : Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.S.Pundir, D.A.G. for the State. Writ Petition No. 27 of 2025 (S/S) Amit Shankar Bhadula and Others ….......Petitioners Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others …..... Respondents Present : Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.S.Pundir, D.A.G. for the State. Writ Petition No. 70 of 2025 (S/S) Neetu Rani and Others ….......Petitioners Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others …..... Respondents Present : Mr. Anuj Kumar Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioners, through video conferencing. Mr. N.S.Pundir, D.A.G. for the State. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, Advocate for the NCTE. 2 Writ Petition No. 80 of 2025 (S/S) Satpal Singh and Others ….......Petitioners Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others …..... Respondents Present : Mr. A.M. Saklani, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.S.Pundir, D.A.G. for the State. Writ Petition No. 138 of 2025 (S/S) Sarita Rani and Another ….......Petitioners Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others …..... Respondents Present : Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.S.Pundir, D.A.G. for the State. Writ Petition No. 195 of 2025 (S/S) Sahzad Husain ….......Petitioner State of Uttarakhand and others …..... Respondents Vs. Present : Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.S.Pundir, D.A.G. for the State. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, Advocate for the NCTE. Writ Petition No. 196 of 2025 (S/S) Deepsikha Rajput ….......Petitioner Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others …..... Respondents Present : Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.S.Pundir, D.A.G. for the State. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, Advocate for the NCTE. Writ Petition No. 197 of 2025 (S/S) Deepak Kumar ….......Petitioner Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others …..... Respondents Present : Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.S.Pundir, D.A.G. for the State. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, Advocate for the NCTE. 3 Writ Petition No. 209 of 2025 (S/S) Kapil Dev and Others ….......Petitioners Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others …..... Respondents Present : Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.S.Pundir, D.A.G. for the State. Writ Petition No. 522 of 2025 (S/S) Neha Pant and Another ….......Petitioners Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others …..... Respondents Present : Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.S.Pundir, D.A.G. for the State. Writ Petition No. 639 of 2025 (S/S) Prakash Chandra and Others ….......Petitioners State of Uttarakhand and others …..... Respondents Vs. Present : Mr. Armaan Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.S.Pundir, D.A.G. for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) JUDGMENT Since common question of law and facts are involved in these bunch of writ petitions, they are heard together and being decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts of WPSS No.91 of 2025 are referred to.

2. In this bunch of petitions, the petitioners seek directions to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for the post of Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School, against the advertisements, as per the directions and observations dated 10.12.2024, made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Review Petition (Civil) Diary No.4961 of 2024, in Civil 4 Appeal No.7873 of 2023, Viswanath and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others (“the review petition”).

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that they were working as Assistant Teachers in primary schools in various Districts of State of Uttarakhand. They had cleared teachers’ eligibility test. They also obtained D.EL.ED training, as recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (“the NCTE”) in elementary education through Open and Distance (“ODL”) mode conducted by National Institute of Open Schooling (“NIOS”). It was the claim of the petitioners that they are eligible for being considered for appointment as Assistant Teachers in Government Primary Schools situated in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioners were not permitted to participate in the recruitment process for recruitment to the post of Assistant Teachers in Government Primary Schools. It was challenged in a bunch of writ petitions, namely, WPSS No.350 of 2021, Nandan Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, and connected matters, (“the first petitions”) which were decided on 14.09.2022, and the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:- “50. We are also of the view that in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak (supra), the State Government is bound to act as per the directions and orders issued by the NCTE, which is constituted under a Central legislation, and is recognized by the Central Government as the academic authority under Section 23 of the RTE Act. The qualifications prescribed by the NCTE for teachers, inter alia, teaching primary classes are binding on the State Government and, therefore, the State Government cannot insist that the Assistant Teachers (Primary) in the State should have undergone the two-years’ D.El.Ed. programme. In respect 5 of the in-service teachers, who have undergone the 18 months’ D.El.Ed. programme conducted by the NIOS through the ODL mode, the State Government cannot seek to discriminate by debarring them from offering their candidatures for the posts of Assistant Teachers (Primary) in the State of Uttarakhand. The impugned Communication / Order bearing No. 236/XXIVA/1/2021/18/2018 T.C. dated 10.02.2021, issued by the Secretary, Department of Elementary Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, therefore, cannot be sustained, and we, accordingly, quash the same.

51. We allow all the writ petitions, and hold that the 18 month D.El.Ed. Training Diploma conducted through the ODL mode in elementary education by the NIOS is a valid Diploma for applying against the regular posts of Assistant Teachers (Primary) in the State of Uttarakhand. The respondents shall, therefore, consider the candidatures of the petitioners for the said posts on the basis of the applications made by them pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Department of Elementary Education, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. The petitioners shall be entitled to the costs quantified at Rs. 2,000/- each to be paid by the respondent No. 1, i.e. the State of Uttarakhand within four weeks.”

5. The judgment and order dated 14.09.2022, passed in the first petition was challenged in appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaiveer Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, 2023 INSC 1024 (“the appeal”). While allowing the writ petition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court decided the appeal on 28.11.2023, and in Para 41 observed as follows:- “41. In view of what has been held by this Court hereinabove, we find that the High Court erred in holding that 18 months Diploma conducted by NIOS through ODL mode is equivalent to the 2 years regular Diploma, particularly so, when there was no material placed on record to even remotely hold that such a qualification was recommended by the Expert Body NCTE. On the contrary, the communication dated 6th September 2019 of NCTE, the directives of MHRD so also the recognition order dated 22nd September 2017 clearly go on to show that the 18 months Diploma was provided as a one time window to the in-service teachers to acquire the minimum qualifications between the 2017 Amendment Act and the outer limit of 1st April 2019. In our considered view, the High Court has totally erred in holding that the 2 years Diploma is equivalent to 18 months Diploma.”

6. Thereafter, in the result, the appeal was dismissed, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- 6 “(i) The appeals are allowed; (ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 14th September 2022 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital is quashed and set aside; and (iii) The writ petitions filed by the original writ petitioners are dismissed.”

7. It is thereafter, the review petition was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 10.12.2024. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- “3. However, to avoid any confusion, we again clarify that the 18 months diploma obtained by such persons, who were in employment as on 10.08.2017 and who have completed the diploma course of 18 months, would be treated as valid diploma holders for the purpose of applying in other institutes or for promotional avenues.

4. Needless to state that the clarification will be effective from the date of pronouncement of the judgment under review.”

8. It is at that stage the petitioners have approached this Court seeking directions to the respondent so as to consider the candidature of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers in government schools.

9. Today, as soon as the matter is taken up, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WPSS No.2419 of 2024, Vishwanath Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, and WPSS No.4 of 2025, Umesh Aaarya and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, joined the proceedings through video conferencing and submits that in a transfer petition, being Transfer Petition (C) Nos. 42-43 of 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided both these writ petitions. The judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (C) Nos. 42-43 of 2025, dated

05.03.2025, has also been tendered for the perusal of the Court, 7 which is taken on record. By this order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in fact, decided WPSS No.2419 of 2024 and WPSS No.4 of

2025. Both these petitions were earlier tagged with the present bunch of the writ petitions. In this judgment dated 05.03.2025, passed in Transfer Petition (C) Nos. 42-43 of 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Para 20, observed as follows:- “20. No doubt that, this Court has upheld the 2012 Rules framed by the State Government, vide the judgment dated 28th November 2023. However, at the same time, this Court had clarified that such of the teachers, who were already in employment as on 10th August 2017, would be entitled to the benefit of One Time Scheme provided by the Government of India. This Court had held that such of the teachers who have completed the diploma course of 18 months would be treated as valid diploma holders for the purpose of applying in other institutions or for promotional avenues.”

10. During the course of hearing, today, Government Order No.289654/XXIV-A-1/2025-49375/2023, dated 15.04.2025, has also been placed for the perusal of the Court, which has taken note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Transfer Petition (C) Nos. 42-43 of 2025, on 05.03.2025, and, thereafter, directed that all such candidates, who were in service on

10.08.2017, and who had obtained 18 months D.El.Ed. diploma, pursuant to NCTE recognition order dated 22.09.2017, from NIOS through ODL mode, may also be considered for their recruitment to the post of Assistant Teachers.

11. Learned counsel for the NCTE would submit that, in fact, NCTE has already taken a decision on this aspect on

27.03.2025, and had communicated it to all the State Government by their communication dated 27.01.2025, which reads as follows:- “12. In pursuance of filing of Review Petition (Diary No.4961 of 2024) against the judgment dated 28.11.2023 8 passed in Civil Appeal No.7873 of 2023 titled Viswanath and Others Vs. The State of Uttarakhand, the Hon’ble Apex Court vide Order dated 10.12.2024 (Copy attached) has further clarified that the 18 months diploma which has been obtained by persons who were employed on or before 10.08.2017 would be treated as a valid diploma for the purpose of applying in other institutions or for promotional avenues.”

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the review petition, all the petitioners are also entitled to be considered for their recruitment to the post of Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School, because they all were in service on

10.08.2017, and they had obtained 18 months’ diploma. It is further argued that now the Hon’ble Supreme Court had further clarified this on 05.03.2025, while deciding the Transfer Petition (C) Nos. 42-43 of 2025.

13. Learned State Counsel would submit that in view of the judgment dated 05.03.2025, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (C) Nos. 42-43 of 2025, the State Government has already issued a government order dated 15.04.2025, and according to Para 7 of this Government order, the cases of such candidates would be considered in accordance with law.

14. In fact, what was in issue was as to whether such candidates, who were in service in primary schools on 10.08.2017, and who obtained D.El.Ed. course from NIOS, through ODL mode till 01.04.2019 would be eligible for participating in the recruitment process for Assistant Teachers, Government Primary Schools?

15. As stated in the first petitions, this Court has held that the 18 months D.EL.Ed programme conducted through ODL mode 9 in elementary education by NIOS is a valid diploma for applying against the regular post of Assistant Teachers (Primary) in the State of Uttarakhand. But, this judgment dated 14.09.2022, passed in the first petition, has been upset by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the appeal. But in Para 41 of it, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that, “the communication dated 6th September 2019 of NCTE, the directives of MHRD so also the recognition order dated 22nd September 2017 clearly go on to show that the 18 months Diploma was provided as a one time window to the in- service teachers to acquire the minimum qualifications between the 2017 Amendment Act and the outer limit of 1st April 2019.”

16. This has further been clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the review petition, wherein Para 3 of its order dated

10.12.2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further reiterated that, “to avoid any confusion, we again clarify that the 18 months diploma obtained by such persons, who were in employment as on 10.08.2017 and who have completed the diploma course of 18 months, would be treated as valid diploma holders for the purpose of applying in other institutes or for promotional avenues.”

17. This has further been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 05.03.2025, passed in Transfer Petition (C) Nos. 42-43 of 2025. In fact, post judgment dated 05.03.2025, Government of Uttarakhand had also issued a Government order dated 15.04.2025. There remains no confusion now. 10

18. In view of the above, the State Government is directed to consider the claim of the petitioners in accordance with the clarification dated 10.12.2024, issued in the review petitions, and if the petitioners are found to be eligible, to appoint them in accordance with law.

19. It is further clarified that while doing so, the State Government would not reopen the selection already conducted, which has reached finality.

20. All the writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. Ravi Bisht (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

29.04.2025