Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(UK) 88

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
PANKAJ PUROHIT, MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, JJ.
Neetu Pathak and Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (S/S) No.574 of 2019 With Writ Petition (S/B) No.379 of 2020 With Writ Petition (S/S) No.910 of 2019 With Writ Petition (S/B) No.430 of 2021 With Writ Petition (S/B) No.446 of 2021
Decided On : 25-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Chandra Shekhar Dalakoti, Mr. Vikas Pande and Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned D.A.G., Mr. Saurabh Budhori, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, learned counsel.

The court ruled that B.Ed. qualifications are insufficient for Teacher appointments in Elementary/Primary Schools, requiring additional credentials per Supreme Court directives.

Headnote:(A) Uttarakhand Government Elementary Education School (Teachers) Service Rules, 2012 - Rule 9 Column-2 - Qualification for appointment as Teacher in Elementary/Primary Schools - B.Ed. qualification alone is inadequate without additional required qualifications like Diploma in Elementary Education - Supreme Court rulings clarify eligibility constraints for Teacher appointments. (Paras 5, 6, 14)

(B) Review proceedings - Scope - Limited to rectifying errors apparent on the face of the record - Not to be confused with an appeal process for re-examining judgments. (Paras 16, 24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to challenge the eligibility requirement for appointment as Assistant Teachers citing B.Ed. qualifications, but the court reaffirmed reliance on previous apex court rulings invalidating their claims under relevant educational notifications.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld dismissal of the petitioners' writ petitions citing ineligibility as determined by prior Supreme Court rulings and clarified that participation under interim orders does not alter entitlements.

Issues: The legitimacy of B.Ed. qualifications as sufficient for appointment versus the requirements specified by education service rules was central to the debate.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that eligibility requirements set forth by the Supreme Court must be adhered to, rejecting claims hinging solely on B.Ed. qualifications without meeting additional criteria.

Result: Review applications rejected.

Table of Content
1. delay in review application is condoned. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. eligibility requirements for b.ed. holders examined. (Para 5 , 6 , 10)
3. review applicants failed to demonstrate error in judgment. (Para 11 , 21 , 22)
4. scope of review is limited, not an appeal. (Para 16)
5. review applications rejected. (Para 17 , 18 , 24)

JUDGMENT :

Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, therefore are being taken up together and are being decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No.574 of 2019 alone are being considered.

Review Application (MCC/10189/2024) in WPSB/379/2020

Review Application (MCC/9529/2024) in WPSS/574/2019

Review Application (MCC/5110/2024) in WPSS/910/2019

Review Application (MCC/2/2024) in WPSB/430/2021

Review Application (MCC/3/2024) in WPSB/446/2021

2. For the reasons indicated, delay in filing the review applications is condoned. Delay Condonation applications stand disposed of.

3. Writ petitioners have filed these applications seeking review of judgment and order dated 06.12.2023, whereby, the writ petitions filed by petitioners were dismissed by holding that as per the law declared by Hon’ble Apex Court, persons having B.Ed. qualification are no more eligible for appointment as Teacher in Elementary/Primary Schools. Para 5, 6 and 7 of the judgment sought to be reviewed are extracted below:-

“5. It is not in dispute that petitioners in these writ petitions are seeking appointment as Assistant Teacher in Government Primary Schools on the strength of B.Ed. qualification and none of them possesses Diploma in Elementary Education and Diploma in Education, which makes a candidate eligible for appointment as teacher in a Primary/Elementary School.

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has held that B.Ed. qualification alone is not sufficient for appointment as teacher in Elementary/Primary Schools. In view of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court, petitioners are not eligible for appointment in Basic/Primary/Elementary Schools, therefore, the challenge thrown to provision contained in Rule 9 Column-2 of Uttarakhand Government Elementary Education School (Teachers) Service Rules, 2012, as amended in 2018, becomes only academic in nature, and this Court refrains from going into the issues raised by petitioners in these writ petitions.

7. Accordingly, writ petitions fail and are dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.”

4. Learned senior counsel for review applicants submits that even though number of grounds have been raised in the review applications, however, he is not pressing other grounds and review is sought only on the following three grounds:

1) While deciding the writ petitions, earlier judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sharan Maurya Vs. State of U.P. and Others (2021) 15 SCC 401, was not considered and the writ petitions were dismissed by relying on a subsequent judgment rendered in the case ofDevesh Sharma Vs. Union of India (2023) Vol.18 SCC 339.

2) In the case of Ram Sharan Maurya (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court held that as per notification dated 28.06.2018 issued by National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), candidates with B.Ed. qualification are eligible for appointment as Teacher in Primary Schools, which aspect however was overlooked by this Court while deciding the writ petitions.

3) In some of the writ petitions, petitioners/review applicants had cleared six months Bridge Course after passing B.Ed., which brings them at par with D.El.Ed. qualification holders, therefore, such candidates are entitled to be appointed as Teacher in Government Primary Schools in their own right.

5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the writ petitions were rightly dismissed by following the law declared in the case of Devesh Sharma (Supra). He further submits that judgment rendered in the case of Ram Sharan Maurya (Supra) is distinguishable on facts. It is contende