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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 6210

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J
Sandip Roy – Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal – Respondent
W.P.A 18980 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Subir Sanyal, Chittapriya Ghosh, Somesh Kumar Ghosh
For the Respondents: Asha G. Gutgutia, Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya, Pinaki Bhattacharyya, Ratul Biswas, Kaushik Chowdhury

Candidates appointed as primary teachers post-11th August 2023 with B.Ed. qualifications cannot claim the benefit of the six-month bridge course, despite earlier cohorts from the same recruitment process being granted such relief by coordinate benches, as strict compliance with educational standards is required post-Devesh Sharma.

Headnote:(A) Right to Education Act, 2009 - Section 23 - Qualification for primary school teachers - Eligibility of B.Ed. degree holders - Supreme Court in Devesh Sharma v. Union of India (2023) 18 SCC 339, held B.Ed. not an appropriate qualification and quashed the notification extending eligibility - Cut-off date for protection of services fixed as 11th August 2023 - Candidates appointed post cut-off must possess two-year D.El.Ed. qualification. (Paras 3, 4, 11)

(B) Article 14 of Constitution - Doctrine of Negative Equality - Parity cannot be claimed based on a wrong decision or inadvertent favouritism - No right exists to demand benefit of a protective order if the petitioner falls outside the classification based on logical nexus (date of appointment). (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners are primary school teachers appointed in 2025 arising from a 2009 recruitment process. Due to administrative delays, their appointments occurred after the Supreme Court's ruling in Devesh Sharma regarding the invalidity of B.Ed. for primary teaching. They sought to undergo a six-month Bridge Course similar to candidates appointed in 2021, arguing that the delay in their employment was attributable to the State.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the 11th August 2023 cut-off date is binding and that the petitioners, having been appointed thereafter, do not qualify for the bridge course. The court emphasized that judicial discipline prevents the extension of protective orders that were based on specific equity considerations for earlier batches. Due to a conflict with a coordinate bench decision, the matter is referred for consideration by a Larger Bench.

Issues: Whether candidates from the 2009 recruitment process appointed post-2023 can claim the benefit of the six-month Bridge Course to validate B.Ed. qualifications, and whether Article 14 mandates parity with earlier batches given the administrative delays.

Ratio Decidendi: A judicial decision granting relief on equitable grounds to one set of litigants does not create a binding precedent for others outside that class, especially when the latter are subject to a clear statutory cut-off mandated by the Supreme Court; parity cannot be used to perpetuate an illegality or override mandatory educational qualifications.

Result: Matter referred to a Larger Bench.

Table of Content
1. overview of the protracted recruitment process and litigation history for primary teacher candidates. (Para 1 , 2)
2. impact of devesh sharma on b.ed. eligibility and the cut-off date of 11th august 2023. (Para 3 , 4 , 11)
3. arguments concerning parity and the restrictiveness of the bridge course based on appointment dates. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. rejection of negative equality and affirmation that administrative delays do not validate impermissible qualifications. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. need for larger bench due to conflicting judicial views on eligibility extensions. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)

Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J:

1. The petitioners in the present writ petition are primary school teachers appointed in February 2025 under the much-delayed recruitment process initiated in 2009 by the North 24-Parganas District Primary School Council. The recruitment notification, published on 23rd April, 2010, prescribed only Madhyamik or equivalent qualification with the ability to read and write in the chosen medium. Many of the petitioners, being university graduates with B.Ed. training, applied and duly appeared in the written examination in February 2011. Following allegations of irregularity, favouritism and manipulation, the then Governor of West Bengal, by an order dated 21st June, 2012, annulled the process for four districts including North 24-Parganas and directed de-novo examinations.

2. The de-novo examination was conducted in March 2014 followed by aptitude tests and interview in November the same year. Based on academic records, written test and interview performance, panels were prepared and duly approved by the Commissioner of School Education in June 2015. Despite this approval, the District Primary School Council did not release appointments, leaving eligible candidates waiting. Protracted litigation ensued and ultimately, this Court in January 2021 directed the Council to publish panels and issue appointments, even by creating supernumerary posts. As a result, a panel was published in February 2021 and appointments were given to a batch of empanelled candidates later in 2021. However, the entire process continued to face judicial scrutiny because many eligible candidates were left out. In April 2024, by a comprehensive order passed by Hon’ble Justice Rajasekhar Mantha, it was directed that all candidates called to the interview in the 2009 process, provided they had filed writ petitions by 24th April, 2024, would be entitled to appointments. In consequence, the present petitioners too received appointment letters, albeit only in 2025, bringing closure to a recruitment exercise that had stretched for over sixteen years.

3. In the intervening years, there were transformative changes in the law of teacher qualifications under Section 23 of the Right to Education Act, 2009 . Notifications of the National Council for Teacher Education in 2010 and 2011 mandated minimum qualifications of Higher Secondary with 50% marks together with D.El.Ed., or Graduation with D.El.Ed. For a time, candidates with B.Ed. degrees were also considered eligible, provided they underwent a six-month Bridge Course. This temporary window was expanded through the 2018 notification, which allowed B.Ed. holders to be directly recruited to primary schools subject to such course. However, that notification per se was challenged and set aside by the Supreme Court in August 2023 in Devesh Sharma v. Union of India reported in (2023) 18 SCC 339, which held that B.Ed. was not an appropriate qualification for primary school pedagogy.

4. On 8th April 2024, while dealing with subsequent applications, the Supreme Court clarified that its judgment in Devesh Sharma (supra) would be prospective in operation. Thus, it protected the services of those candidates with B.Ed. who had been appointed before 11th August 2023, but required them to undergo a six-month Bridge Course specially designed by NCTE in order to continue in service. For those appointed aft

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