SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 737

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
Navin Kumar & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. of 2024, Arising Out Of Diary No. 17948 of 2024, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10295 of 2024, Special Leave Petition (C) No. of 2024, Arising Out Of Diary No. 20149 of 2024, Special Leave Petition (C) No. of 2024, Arising Out Of Diary No. 20848 of 2024, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13756 of 2024, Special Leave Petition (C) No. of 2024, Arising Out Of Diary No. 36283 of 2024, With Special Leave Petition (C) No. of 2024, Arising Out Of Diary No. 37276 of 2024
Decided On : 28-08-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Apoorv Kurup, A.A.G. Mr. K.M. Natraj, A.S.G. Mr. Arjun D Singh, Adv. Ms. Ankita Sharma, AOR Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Mr. Aakash Nandolia, Adv. Ms. Kriti Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Hegde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shashank Shekhar Jha, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Thakur, Adv. Mr. Subhash Chandra Jha, Adv. Mr. Archit Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Vishhal Saxxenaa, Adv. Mr. Pramod Kumar Tripathy, Adv. Ms. Erika Yagnik, Adv. Mr. Diva Kant, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar, AOR Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhijeet Shrivastava, AOR Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Adv. Mr. Aniket Singh Das, Adv. Ms. Devangna Singh, Adv. Ms. Sanya Shukla, Adv. Ms. Krati Dubey, Adv. Mr. Ieeshan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Rhea Rao, Adv. Ms. Selina Raj Mevati, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. P S Patwalia, Adv. Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR Mr. Hassan Zubair Waris, Adv. Mr. Suchit Rawat, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Amritanshu, Adv. Ms. Aastha Shreshta, Adv. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR Mr. Hassan Zubair Waris, Adv. Mr. Suchit Rawat, Adv. Ms. Aastha Sherstha, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mandeep Kalra, AOR Ms. Anushna Satapathy, Adv. Ms. Chitrangada Singh, Adv. Mr. Yashas J, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Chandratanay Chaube, Adv. Mr. K.M. Natraj, A.S.G. Mr. Apoorv Kurup, A.A.G. Ms. Ankita Sharma, AOR Mr. Arjun D Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR Mr. Rishi K Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Piyush Vatsa, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Punit Vinay, AOR Mr. Rahul Raj Mishra, Adv. Mr. Avinash Ankit, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. D. K. Garg, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Garg, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Garg, AOR Mr. Akshat Srivastava, AOR Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mandeep Kalra, AOR Ms. Anushna Satapathy, Adv. Ms. Chitrangada Singh, Adv. Mr. Yashas J, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Chandratanay Chaube, Adv.

The court established that D.El.Ed. is the sole qualification for primary school teachers, invalidating B.Ed. as a qualification and affirming the prospective application of its ruling.

Headnote:

Qualification - Primary School Teachers - NCTE Notification - The court upheld that the essential qualification for primary school teachers is D.El.Ed., quashing the NCTE notification allowing B.Ed. candidates, emphasizing the legal binding nature of qualifications as per the Right to Education Act.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a challenge to the Rajasthan High Court's ruling that D.El.Ed. is the essential qualification for primary school teachers, disqualifying B.Ed. candidates. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling and clarified its prospective application for previously appointed B.Ed. candidates.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that B.Ed. candidates appointed after the Devesh Sharma judgment were disqualified as the essential qualification for primary school teachers is D.El.Ed., and the NCTE notification allowing B.Ed. was quashed.

Issues: Whether B.Ed. candidates appointed after the Devesh Sharma judgment could be considered eligible for primary school teacher positions despite the ruling that D.El.Ed. is the essential qualification.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the qualifications prescribed by the NCTE and the Chhattisgarh Rules must align with the Supreme Court's ruling in Devesh Sharma, which established D.El.Ed. as the sole qualification for primary school teachers.

Result: The Supreme Court dismissed all Special Leave Petitions, upholding the Chhattisgarh High Court's judgment.

ORDER :

1. In Devesh Sharma vs. Union of India, 2023 INSC 704 (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.

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 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 ineligib

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top