High Court · 2025

3. Pet it ioners have challenged t he am endm ent m ade in Clause 3( 2) of t he Prim ary Governm ent Ut t arakhand Elem ent ary ( Teachers) Educat ion ( Am endm ent ) Service Rules, 2019, which t hat every candidat e, who provides applies for appoint m ent as Assist ant Teacher, Governm ent Prim ary School, should have m inim um 50% of m arks in Graduat ion. subm it s t hat even t hen also, learned St at e 4. Mr. Rahul Verm a, t he Counsel requirem ent of 50 percent m arks ignored, as prayed by graduat ion pet it ioners, t hey are not eligible for appoint m ent in view of law declared by Hon’ble Suprem e Court in t he case of D e v e sh Sh a r m a Vs. Un i o n o f I n d i a a n d Ot h e r s, Ci v i l A p p e a l N o . 5 0 6 8 o f 2 0 2 3 , report ed in 2 0 2 3 SCC On Li n e SC 9 8 5 . Relevant Para Nos. 32 t o 42, 49 and 61 t o 63 of t he said j udgm ent are reproduced below: - “ 3 2 . A person who has a BEd qualificat ion has been t rained t o im par t t eaching t o secondary and higher secondary level of st udent s. He is not expect ed st udent s. 3 3 . I n order t o appreciat e t he difference bet ween Diplom a in Elem ent ar y Educat ion ( it is called by t o pr im ar y t raining im part t o I t The t o as t eacher t o what “ Diplom a is st at ed elem ent ary issued by Nat ional Council different nam es in each St at e) , and Bachelor of Educat ion ( BEd) , we look no furt her t han t he not ificat ions Teacher Educat ion ( NCTE) it self from t im e t o t im e. 3 4 . The Appendix 2 t o t he NCTE Regulat ions, t he aim of 2009 spells out as Elem ent ary Educat ion. t o be as follows: “ 1 . Pr e a m b l e 1 .1 . The Diplom a in Elem ent ary Educat ion ( DElEd) is a t wo year professional program m e of t eacher educat ion. I t aim s t o prepare t eachers for t he elem ent ary st age of educat ion i.e. Classes I t o VI I I . The aim of elem ent ary educat ion is t o fulfil t he basic learning needs of all children in an inclusive school envir onm ent bridging social and gender gaps wit h t he act ive part icipat ion of t he com m unit y. educat ion 1 .2 . program m e carries different nom enclat ures such as BTC, JBT, DEd and ( Diplom a in Educat ion) . Hencefort h, t he nom enclat ure of t he program m e shall be t he sam e across all St at es and it shall be referred in Elem ent ary t he Educat ion” ( DElEd) .” 3 5 . The sam e Regulat ion describes BEd as follows: “ 1 . Pr e a m b l e The Bachelor of Educat ion program m e, generally known as BEd, is a professional course t hat prepares t eachers for upper pr im ary or m iddle level ( Classes VI - VI I I ) , secondary level ( Classes I X- X) and senior secondary level ( Classes XI - XI I ) . The program m e shall be offered com posit e inst it ut ions as defined in clause ( b) of Regulat ion 2.” 3 6 . I t is t herefore clear t hat a BEd course is not level. designed 3 7 . Moreover, t he inclusion of BEd candidat es for t eet h of several prim ary classes decisions of t his Court has in Elem ent ary consist ent ly held Educat ion ( DElEd) and not BEd, is t he proper qualificat ion in Pr im ar y Schools. 3 8 . I n Dilip Kum ar Ghosh v. Dist r ict Pr im ary School Council [ Dilip Kum ar Ghosh v. Dist r ict Pr im ary School Council, ( 2005) 7 SCC 567 : 2005 SCC ( L&S) 986] , t his Court had t o decide on t he quest ion whet her BEd degree candidat e can be equat ed wit h a candidat e who holds t raining in Pr im ary School t eaching or in ot her words who is t rained specifically for Pr im ary Schools. The cont ent ion of t he appellant s ( in t he aforesaid case) who were BEd candidat es was t hat , t heir t each Prim ary course ( BEd) , equips t his Court , as it s Appendix 4 t hat Diplom a t eaching pr im ar y t hem t he t o Classes. Their cont ent ion was rej ect ed by t his Court . I n para 9, it st at ed as under : ( SCC p. 573) “ 9. I n BEd curr iculum such subj ect s like child psychology are not found. On t he ot her hand, t he curriculum is of a generic nat ure and deals wit h subj ect s like t he principle of educat ional- curriculum st udies, educat ional psychology, developm ent of educat ion in m odern I ndia, social organisat ion and inst ruct ional m et hods, et c.” Then again in para 10 it was st at ed as under : ( Dilip Kum ar Ghosh case [ Dilip Kum ar Ghosh v. Dist r ict Pr im ary School Council, ( 2005) 7 SCC 567 : 2005 SCC ( L&S) 986] , SCC p. 573) “ 10. … For t eaching in t he pr im ary school, t herefore, one m ust know t he child psychology and developm ent of a child at a t ender age. As already not iced, t he appellant s who are t r ained in BEd degree are not necessarily t o be equipped t o t each t he st udent s of prim ar y class. They are not t rained and equipped t o underst and t he psychology of a child of t ender age.” t he candidat es 3 9 . I n P.M. Lat ha v. St at e of Kerala [ P.M. Lat ha v. St at e of Kerala, ( 2003) 3 SCC 541 : 2003 SCC ( L&S) 339] t he argum ent t hat BEd qualificat ion is a higher qualificat ion t han Diplom a in Elem ent ary Educat ion ( DElEd) w as rej ect ed. Again, it was a t he Suprem e Court where BEd case before candidat es, were claim ing appoint m ent as Pr im ary School t eachers on t he basis of t he claim t hat t heir educat ional qualificat ion ( i.e. BEd) was even higher t han t he Diplom a in Elem ent ary Educat ion ( DElEd) w hich was held by t he ot her candidat es. I n para 10 of t he said case, it was st at ed as under : ( SCC p. 546) reit erat ed by findings were find absolut ely no “ 10. We t he argum ent advanced by t he respondent s t hat BEd qualificat ion is a higher qualificat ion t han TTC and t herefore, t he BEd candidat es should be held t o be eligible t o com pet e for t he post .” t he 4 0 . These Suprem e Court in Yogesh Kum ar v. St at e ( NCT of Delhi) [ Yogesh Kum ar v. St at e ( NCT of Delhi) , ( 2003) 3 SCC 548 : 2003 SCC ( L&S) 346] , holding t hat t hough BEd is a well- recognised qualificat ion in t he field of t eaching, yet it is a t raining which equips a candidat e t o t each higher classes, not classes at pr im ary level. 4 1 . BEd is not a qualificat ion for t eachers at Pr im ary level of schooling. The pedagogical skills and t raining required from a t eacher at Prim ary level is not expect ed from a BEd t rained t eacher. They are t rained t o t each classes at higher level, post prim ary, secondary and above. For Prim ary “ qualit y” of educat ion at Pr im ary level i.e. Class I t o Class V t he t raining is DElEd or what is known as Diplom a in Elem ent ary Educat ion. I t is a DElEd t raining course which is designed and st ruct ured t o im par t skills in a t eacher who is t o t each Pr im ary level of st udent s. 4 2 . Therefore, by im plicat ion t he inclusion of BEd as a qualificat ion am ount s t o lowering down of t he level. “ Qualit y” of educat ion which was such an im port ant com ponent of t he ent ire elem ent ary educat ion m ovem ent in t his count ry, which we have discussed in t he preceding paragraphs of t his order. 4 9 . The pedagogical skills of a t eacher m ust be given a very high pr iorit y. But our pr ior it y seem s t o be different . I t is not t o im part “ qualit y” educat ion, but t o pr ovide m ore j ob avenues t o BEd t rained candidat es, as t his seem s t o be t he only reason for t heir inclusion, in presence of overwhelm ing evidence t hat BEd course is not a suit able course for pr im ary classes. 6 1 . Unlike Diplom a in Elem ent ary Educat ion ( DElEd) , BEd does not equip a t eacher t o t each at pr im ary level. This fact is im plicit ly recognised in t he Not ificat ion as well ( Not ificat ion dat ed 28- 6- 2018) , which st ill requires a person, who is appoint ed as a t eacher wit h BEd qualificat ion t o “ m andat or ily undergo a six- m ont h Br idge Course in Elem ent ary Educat ion” . This defeat s t he very logic of including BEd as a qualificat ion, as t he very not ificat ion which pushes for t he inclusion of inherent pedagogical BEd, also recognises it s weakness in it s relat ion t o prim ary classes. I t is t o cover t his defect , t hat all such candidat es, m ust undergo a m andat ory six m ont hs' Bridge Course in Elem ent ary Educat ion! The irony here is t hat all t his is being done when t he St at e of Raj ast han already has m ore t han t he r equired candidat es num ber available. This is besides t he fact t hat t here is present ly no such “ bridge course” available; at least t here was none t ill t he disposal of t he pet it ion by t he Raj ast han High Court . 6 2 . Under t hese circum st ances, we are unable t o com prehend as t o what was t he pressing need t o include BEd candidat es, who are adm it t edly not t ake up Prim ar y Classes! Consequent ly, t he decision of NCTE t o include BEd as a qualificat ion for t eachers in a prim ary school seem s arbit rar y, unreasonable and in fact has no nexus wit h t o be achieved by t he Act i.e. t he Right t o Educat ion Act , which is t o give t o children not only fr ee and com pulsory but also “ qualit y” educat ion. 6 3 . I n our considered opinion, t herefore, NCTE including BEd as a was not t he obj ect sought of Diplom a qualified j ust ified t rained t o t o for appoint m ent qualificat ion t he post of prim ary school t eacher ( Level 1) , a qualificat ion it had so far consciously kept out of t he eligibilit y requirem ent . The Raj ast han High Court by way of t he im pugned j udgm ent [ Raj endra Singh Chot iya v. NCTE, 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 4372] had right ly st ruck down t he Not ificat ion dat ed 28- 6- 2018, : ( Raj endra Singh Chot iya case [ Raj endra Singh Chot iya v. NCTE, 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 4372] , SCC OnLine Raj para 49) “ 49. .… ( i ) The im pugned Not ificat ion dat ed 28- 6- 2018 is unlawful because: follow ing gr ounds t he ( a ) it is under t he direct ion of t he Cent ral Governm ent , which t he Cent ral Governm ent under sub- sect ion ( 1) of Sect ion 23 of t he RTE Act did not have; and ( b ) it is not in exercise of power of t he Cent ral Governm ent under sub- sect ion ( 2) of Sect ion t he eligibilit y 23 of crit er ia prescribed by NCTE, nor t here has been any exercise for ascert aining exist ence of t he condit ions precedent for exercising such power. t he RTE Act relaxing locus st andi t o ( i i ) The pet it ioners have t he Not ificat ion dat ed 28- 6- 2018. challenge Merely because an addit ional qualificat ion recognised as one of t he eligibilit y cr it er ia, t he pet it ioners cannot be prevent ed from challenging it . ( i i i ) Accept ing a candidat e wit h BEd degree as eligible for appoint m ent and t hereaft er subj ect ing him t o com plet e t he bridge course wit hin t wo years of appoint m ent is in t he nat ure of r elaxing t he exist ing eligibilit y crit er ia, which t he Cent ral Governm ent could have done only w it hin sub- sect ion ( 2) of Sect ion 23 and subj ect t o exist ence of circum st ances necessary for exercise of such power. ( i v ) The St at e Governm ent could not have ignored t he Not ificat ion of NCTE dat ed 28- 6- 2018 while issuing advert isem ent for REET. However, when we have declared t hat t his not ificat ion is illegal and are in t he process of set t ing aside, t he issue becom es one of academ ic value.” I n find subst ance t he above t he said 5. We subm ission. j udgm ent , Hon’ble Suprem e Court has held t hat B.Ed. appoint m ent prim ary/ elem ent ary school t eacher. is not a valid qualificat ion

6. Law is well set t led t hat every post . em ployer has inherent right t o decide t he eligibilit y condit ion for appoint m ent t o a part icular because pet it ioners do not m eet t he eligibilit y requirem ent m ent ioned in t he Rules for appoint m ent as prim ary school t eacher, is not sufficient for t he pet it ioners t o quest ion validit y of t he applicable Rules. Merely Learned St at e Counsel j udgm ent a placed 7. reliance dat ed 03.06.2025 rendered by t his Court in furt her WPSB No. 479 of 2021. He subm it s t hat t he present writ pet it ion deserves t o be decided in t erm s of t he said j udgm ent . refrain t herefore, we

8. Since pet it ioners are not eligible even as per t he Regulat ions fram ed by NCTE, exam ining t he validit y of t he condit ion t his writ pet it ion, which im pugned requires a candidat e t o have passed graduat ion wit h m inim um 50% m arks. I dent ical cont roversy has been decided t he above referred j udgm ent . t his Court t he writ pet it ion

9. Accordingly, decided in t erm s of t he j udgm ent dat ed 03.06.2025 rendered by t his Court in WPSB No. 479 of 2021. ( Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.)

12.08.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa 85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D 26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL