Dhar m endra Kum ar and ot her s - Pet it ioners v. St at e of Ut t arakhand and ot her s Wit h Writ

St at e of Ut t arakhand and ot her s - - Respondent s -------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence: - Mr. B.D. Pande and Mr. Kaushal Pandey, Advocat es for t he pet it ioners in WPSB No. 479 of 2021 Mr. Sudhir Kum ar Nailwal, St anding Counsel for t he St at e Mr. Yogesh Kum ar Pacholia, Advocat e for privat e respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------- Th e Co u r t m a d e t h e f o l l o w i n g : JUDGMENT: ( p e r H o n ’ b l e Ju s t i ce Sr i M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i )

1. Since t hese t wo writ pet it ions involve com m on quest ions of law and fact , t hey were heard t oget her and are being decided by t his com m on j udgm ent . However, for t he sake of brevit y, fact s of Writ Pet it ion ( S/ B) No. 479 of 2021 alone, are being considered and discussed.

2. Pet it ioners are graduat es in different subj ect s and also possess B.Ed. degrees. According t o t hem , on t he st rengt h of B.Ed. degree, t hey are eligible appoint m ent as Assist ant Teacher ( Prim ary) in different Elem ent ary Schools run by St at e Governm ent .

3. I n t his writ pet it ion, t hey have challenged validit y of Rule 9( A) ( t wo) of Ut t arakhand Governm ent 1 Elem ent ary Educat ion ( Teachers) ( Am endm ent ) Service Rules, 2019, which provides t hat anyone who do not possess bachelor ’s degree wit h m inim um 50 percent m arks shall not be eligible t o be considered appoint m ent as prim ary school t eacher.

4. Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, learned counsel appearing for NCTE and Mr. Sudhir Kum ar Nailwal, learned St at e Counsel, however, subm it t hat even if t he requirem ent of 50 percent m arks in graduat ion is ignored, as prayed by pet it ioners, t hen also, 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: - “ 32. A person who has a BEd qualification has been trained to impart teaching to secondary and higher secondary level of students. He is not expected to impart training to primary level students.

33. In order to appreciate the difference between Diploma in Elementary Education (it is called by different names in each State), and Bachelor of Education (BEd), we look no further than the notifications issued by National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) itself from time to time.

34. The Appendix 2 to the NCTE Regulations, 2009 spells out as to what is the aim of Elementary Education. It is stated to be as follows: “1. Preamble 1.1. The Diploma in Elementary Education (DElEd) is a two year professional programme of teacher education. It aims to prepare teachers for the elementary stage of education i.e. Classes I to VIII. The aim of elementary education is to fulfil the basic learning needs of all children in an inclusive school environment bridging social and gender gaps with the active participation of the community.

1.2. The elementary teacher education programme carries different nomenclatures such as BTC, JBT, DEd and (Diploma in Education). Henceforth, the nomenclature of the programme shall be the same across all States and it shall be referred to as the “Diploma in Elementary Education” (DElEd).”

35. The same Regulation in its Appendix 4 describes BEd as follows: “1. Preamble The Bachelor of Education programme, generally known as BEd, is a professional course that prepares teachers for upper primary or middle 2 level (Classes VI-VIII), secondary level (Classes IX-X) and senior secondary level (Classes XI-XII). The programme shall be offered in composite institutions as defined in clause (b) of Regulation 2.”

36. It is therefore clear that a BEd course is not designed for teaching at primary level.

37. Moreover, the inclusion of BEd candidates for primary classes is in the teeth of several decisions of this Court, as this Court has consistently held that Diploma in Elementary Education (DElEd) and not BEd, is the proper qualification in Primary Schools.

38. In Dilip Kumar Ghosh v. District Primary School Council [Dilip Kumar Ghosh v. District Primary School Council, (2005) 7 SCC 567 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 986] , this Court had to decide on the question whether BEd degree candidate can be equated with a candidate who holds training in Primary School teaching or in other words who is trained specifically for Primary Schools. The contention of the appellants (in the aforesaid case) who were BEd candidates was that, their course (BEd), equips them to teach Primary Classes. Their contention was rejected by this Court. In para 9, it stated as under : (SCC p. 573) “9. In BEd curriculum such subjects like child psychology are not found. On the other hand, the curriculum is of a generic nature and deals with subjects like the principle of educational-curriculum studies, educational psychology, development of education in modern India, social organisation and instructional methods, etc.” Then again in para 10 it was stated as under : (Dilip Kumar Ghosh case [Dilip Kumar Ghosh v. District Primary School Council, (2005) 7 SCC 567 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 986] , SCC p. 573) “10. … For teaching in the primary school, therefore, one must know the child psychology and development of a child at a tender age. As already noticed, the candidates like the appellants who are trained in BEd degree are not necessarily to be equipped to teach the students of primary class. They are not trained and equipped to understand the psychology of a child of tender age.”

39. In P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala [P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala, (2003) 3 SCC 541 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 339] the argument that BEd qualification is a higher qualification than Diploma in Elementary Education (DElEd) was rejected. Again, it was a case before the Supreme Court where BEd candidates, were claiming appointment as Primary School teachers on the basis of the claim that their educational qualification (i.e. BEd) was even higher than the Diploma in Elementary Education (DElEd) which was held by the other candidates. In para 10 of the said case, it was stated as under : (SCC p. 546) “10. We find absolutely no force in the argument advanced by the respondents that BEd qualification is a higher qualification than TTC and therefore, the BEd candidates should be held to be eligible to compete for the post.”

40. These findings were reiterated by the Supreme Court in Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 3 SCC 548 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 346] , holding that though BEd is a well-recognised qualification in the field of teaching, yet it is a training which equips a candidate to teach higher classes, not classes at primary level.

41. BEd is not a qualification for teachers at Primary level of schooling. The pedagogical skills and training required from a teacher at Primary level is not expected from a BEd trained teacher. They are trained to teach classes at higher level, post primary, secondary and above. For Primary level i.e. Class I to Class V the training is DElEd or what is known as Diploma in Elementary Education. It is a DElEd 3 training course which is designed and structured to impart skills in a teacher who is to teach Primary level of students.

42. Therefore, by implication the inclusion of BEd as a qualification amounts to lowering down of the “quality” of education at Primary level. “Quality” of education which was such an important component of the entire elementary education movement in this country, which we have discussed in the preceding paragraphs of this order.

49. The pedagogical skills of a teacher must be given a very high priority. But our priority seems to be different. It is not to impart “quality” education, but to provide more job avenues to BEd trained candidates, as this seems to be the only reason for their inclusion, in presence of overwhelming evidence that BEd course is not a suitable course for primary classes.

61. Unlike Diploma in Elementary Education (DElEd), BEd does not equip a teacher to teach at primary level. This fact is implicitly recognised in the Notification as well (Notification dated 28-6-2018), which still requires a person, who is appointed as a teacher with BEd qualification to “mandatorily undergo a six-month Bridge Course in Elementary Education”. This defeats the very logic of including BEd as a qualification, as the very notification which pushes for the inclusion of BEd, also recognises its inherent pedagogical weakness in its relation to primary classes. It is to cover this defect, that all such candidates, must undergo a mandatory six months' Bridge Course in Elementary Education! The irony here is that all this is being done when the State of Rajasthan already has more than the required number of Diploma qualified candidates available. This is besides the fact that there is presently no such “bridge course” available; at least there was none till the disposal of the petition by the Rajasthan High Court.

62. Under these circumstances, we are unable to comprehend as to what was the pressing need to include BEd candidates, who are admittedly not fully trained to take up Primary Classes! Consequently, the decision of NCTE to include BEd as a qualification for teachers in a primary school seems arbitrary, unreasonable and in fact has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act i.e. the Right to Education Act, which is to give to children not only free and compulsory but also “quality” education.

63. In our considered opinion, therefore, NCTE was not justified in including BEd as a qualification for appointment to the post of primary school teacher (Level 1), a qualification it had so far consciously kept out of the eligibility requirement. The Rajasthan High Court by way of the impugned judgment [Rajendra Singh Chotiya v. NCTE, 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 4372] had rightly struck down the Notification dated 28-6- (Rajendra Singh Chotiya 2018, on case [Rajendra Singh Chotiya v. NCTE, 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 4372] , SCC OnLine Raj para 49) following grounds : “49. … (i) The impugned Notification dated 28-6-2018 is unlawful because: (a) it is under the direction of the Central Government, which power the Central Government under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act did not have; and (b) it is not in exercise of power of the Central Government under sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the RTE Act relaxing the eligibility criteria prescribed by NCTE, nor there has been any exercise for ascertaining existence of the conditions precedent for exercising such power. (ii) The petitioners have locus standi to challenge the Notification dated 28-6-2018. Merely because an additional qualification 4 recognised as one of the eligibility criteria, the petitioners cannot be prevented from challenging it. (iii) Accepting a candidate with BEd degree as eligible for appointment and thereafter subjecting him to complete the bridge course within two years of appointment is in the nature of relaxing the existing eligibility criteria, which the Central Government could have done only within sub-section (2) of Section 23 and subject to existence of circumstances necessary for exercise of such power. (iv) The State Government could not have ignored the Notification of NCTE dated 28-6-2018 while issuing advertisement for REET. However, when we have declared that this notification is illegal and are in the process of setting aside, the issue becomes one of academic value.”

5. We find subst ance in t he subm ission m ade by learned counsel t he respondent s. I n t he said j udgm ent , Hon’ble Suprem e Court has held t hat B.Ed is not a valid qualificat ion for appoint m ent as prim ary / elem ent ary school t eacher.

6. Law is well set t led t hat every em ployer has inherent right t o decide t he eligibilit y condit ion for appoint m ent t o a part icular post . Merely 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.

7. There is presum pt ion regarding validit y of a st at ut ory provision including service rules. Thus, t here is no scope for int erference. The writ pet it ion fails and is dism issed. However, it is m ade clear t hat any of t he pet it ioners who have been appoint ed on m erit , shall not be dist urbed on account of t his order. _______________________________ M A N OJ K UM A R TI W A RI , J. ____________________________ SUBH A SH UPA D H YA Y, J. Dt : 3 rd June, 2025 Mahinder MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c , postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BA BA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH 5 6