JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

Since common question of law and facts are involved in these bunch of writ petitions, they are heard together and being decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts of WPSS No.91 of 2025 are referred to.

2. In this bunch of petitions, the petitioners seek directions to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for the post of Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School, against the advertisements, as per the directions and observations dated 10.12.2024, made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Review Petition (Civil) Diary No.4961 of 2024, in Civil Appeal No.7873 of 2023, Viswanath and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others (“the review petition”).

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that they were working as Assistant Teachers in primary schools in various Districts of State of Uttarakhand. They had cleared teachers’ eligibility test. They also obtained D.EL.ED training, as recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (“the NCTE”) in elementary education through Open and Distance (“ODL”) mode conducted by National Institute of Open Schooling (“NIOS”). It was the claim of the petitioners that they are eligible for being considered for appointment as Assistant Teachers in Government Primary Schools situated in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioners were not permitted to participate in the recruitment process for recruitment to the post of Assistant Teachers in Government Primary Schools. It was challenged in a bunch of writ petitions, namely, WPSS No.350 of 2021, Nandan Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, and connected matters, (“the first petitions”) which were decided on 14.09.2022, and the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:-

“50. We are also of the view that in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak (supra), the State Government is bound to act as per the directions and orders issued by the NCTE, which is constituted under a Central legislation, and is recognized by the Central Government as the academic authority under Section 23 of the RTE Act. The qualifications prescribed by the NCTE for teachers, inter alia, teaching primary classes are binding on the State Government and, therefore, the State Government cannot insist that the Assistant Teachers (Primary) in the State should have undergone the two-years’ D.El.Ed. programme. In respect of the in-service teachers, who have undergone the 18 months’ D.El.Ed. programme conducted by the NIOS through the ODL mode, the State Government cannot seek to discriminate by debarring them from offering their candidatures for the posts of Assistant Teachers (Primary) in the State of Uttarakhand. The impugned Communication / Order bearing No. 236/XXIVA/1/2021/18/2018 T.C. dated 10.02.2021, issued by the Secretary, Department of Elementary Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, therefore, cannot be sustained, and we, accordingly, quash the same.

51. We allow all the writ petitions, and hold that the 18 month D.El.Ed. Training Diploma conducted through the ODL mode in elementary education by the NIOS is a valid Diploma for applying against the regular posts of Assistant Teachers (Primary) in the State of Uttarakhand. The respondents shall, therefore, consider the candidatures of the petitioners for the said posts on the basis of the applications made by them pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Department of Elementary Education, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. The petitioners shall be entitled to the costs quantified at Rs. 2,000/- each to be paid by the respondent No. 1, i.e. the State of Uttarakhand within four weeks.”

5. The judgment and order dated 14.09.2022, passed in the first petition was challenged in appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaiveer Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, 2023 INSC 1024 (“the appeal”). While allowing the