The judgment established the principle that B.Ed. (Special Education) qualification holders were eligible for participating in the UTET-I/CTET-I examination based on the NCTE notification dated 28.06.2018, and their certificates could not be challenged if not set aside by any authority.

JUDGMENT :

Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

By means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought the following reliefs:-

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records and quashing the List of the Candidates published by the District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Champawat on 27.06.2023 (Annexure 22 to the writ petition), whereby the private Respondents and other similarly situated candidates have been declared eligible to participate in the counseling/document verification to be held for the post of Assistant Teacher (Special Education) based on their UTET-I/CTET-I certificate.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Champawat to revise the list of the candidates published on 27.06.2023 (Annexure No. 22 to the writ petition) by excluding the candidates whose names have been included in the eligibility list based on their UTET-I/CTET-I certificate obtained on the basis of B.Ed./B.Ed. (Special Education) qualification.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent no. 3 to issue necessary directions to the Subordinate authorities to verify the UTET-I/CTET-I of the private Respondents and similarly situated persons before offering appointment as Assistant Teacher (Special Education), Govt. Primary School inasmuch as till date the Information Bulletin issued for conducting CTET-I and UTET-I examination does not prescribe B.Ed. (Special Education as one of the minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Teacher for Class 1 to 5.”

2. It is not in dispute that petitioners as well as private respondents have successfully completed B.Ed. (Special Education) Course from institutes which are recognized by Rehabilitation Council of India. Petitioners as well as private respondents responded to advertisements issued by District Education Officer of various districts within State of Uttarakhand, whereby applications were invited for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Special Education) in different Government Primary Schools within the State. In the advertisement, requisite qualification for appointment as Assistant Teacher (Special Education) in Government Primary Schools has been indicated. English translation of relevant clause of the advertisement is reproduced below:-

“Such permanent resident of Uttarakhand State, (i) who possess Bachelor’s Degree in Graduation from University established by law in India.

II. As per Government Order No. 1/109430/XXIV-A-1/2023-12983/2022 dated 25.03.2023, obtained D.Ed. Special Education recognized by Rehabilitation Council of India (R.C.I) OR B.Ed. Special Education OR Equivalent Diploma recognized by R.C.I. and has qualified the Teachers Eligibility Test-first conducted by the State Government/Central Government as per the guidelines issued National Council for Teacher Education (appointment will be given only on production of original marksheet).

III. Assistant Teacher (Special Education) who are to be appointed in this manner for teaching Children with Special need, after appointment are compulsorily required to complete six months bridge course Elementary Education recognized by NCTE.

3. It is not in dispute that none of the petitioners have qualified Teacher’s Eligibility Test conducted by State/Central Government; while, the private respondents have qualified Teacher’s Eligibility Test conducted by Central Government between 2018-2022.

4. The stand taken by petitioners is that as per the applicable guidelines issued by National Council for Teachers Education, candidates possessing B.Ed. (Special Education) qualification were not eligible for participating in UTET-I/CTET-I examination, therefore, according to them, private respondents cannot be given any benefit on the strength of UTET-I/CTET-I certificate possessed by them.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that the concerned agency wh