JAIVEER SINGH AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

               [2023] 15 S.C.R. 597 : 2023 INSC 1024



                        CASE DETAILS
                  JAIVEER SINGH AND OTHERS
                                   v.
        THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS
                 (Civil Appeal No. 7871-7872 of 2023)
                        NOVEMBER 28, 2023
    [B. R. GAVAI AND PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.]
                            HEADNOTES
      Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justified
in holding that 18 months Diploma in Elementary Education-D.El.Ed
conducted by National Institute of Open Schooling-NIOS through Open and
Distance Learning-ODL mode is equivalent to the 2 years regular Diploma
in elementary education as required under the Notifications of National
Council for Teacher Education-NCTE.
      Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
– s. 23 – Qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of
service of teachers – Minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible
for the appointment as teachers prescribed by National Council for
Teacher Education-NCTE – Thereafter, issuance of Service Rules, 2012
and were amended time to time – Department of Higher Education-
MHRD issued a letter directing that all the teachers in Government
Schools must possess minimum qualifications as mandated and a last
chance was given to all teachers to acquire the same till March 31, 2019
– Subsequently, NCTE issued a recognition order, thereby conducting
Diploma in Elementary Education-D.El.Ed programme through Open
and Distance Learning-ODL mode by National Institute of Open
Schooling-NIOS which reduced the duration of diploma from 2 years to
18 months – Thereafter, an office order by NIOS directing its Regional
Directors to implement D.El.Ed. course for training of Untrained In-
service teachers – Subsequently, issuance of advertisement for posts
of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools – Minimum qualification
for the post was 2 years Diploma in D.El.Ed.– In the meantime, order
passed permitting the candidates who passed 18 months Diploma of
NIOS to apply for the post of Assistant Teacher (primary) against the
                                  597
598          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 15 S.C.R.


vacancies issued – However, the said order was recalled – Writ petitions
challenging the same – High Court held that the 18 months Diploma in
D.El.Ed. conducted through the ODL mode in elementary education
by the NIOS is a valid Diploma for applying to the post and that, in
respect of the in-service teachers, who have undergone the 18 months
D.El.Ed. programme cannot discriminated by debarring them from
their candidatures – Challenged to, by the candidates who are holding
the 2 years diploma in elementary education:
      Held: Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by
administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular
point, it can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions
not inconsistent with the rules already framed – An authority cannot issue
orders/office memorandum/executive instructions in contravention of the
statutory rules – However, instructions can be issued only to supplement the
statutory rules but not to supplant it – NCTE recognition order was issued
so as to give effect to the directives of MHRD so as to provide a one-time
window to the teachers who were already working and who in terms of the
2017 Amendment Act were required to acquire the minimum qualifications
prior to 01.04.2019 else would have faced dismissal from service – Said
order, cannot be held to be a direction to the State to act in contravention
of its 2012 Service Rules and the advertisements issued on the basis of
such Service Rules – Finding of the High Court that the 18 months D.El.
Ed. Diploma conducted by NIOS is equal to 2 years Diploma is erroneous
– There is no notification to that effect issued by NCTE in supersession
of its notifications providing minimum 2 years Diploma as a minimum
qualification for appointment of teachers – NCTE, as an expert body, has
a right to prescribe the minimum qualifications, and by the notifications,
NCTE has done so – Thus, the impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court is quashed and set aside – Elementary Teachers Uttarakhand
Government Elementary Education (Teacher) Service Rules, 2012. [Para
34-36, 41-43]
       LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
     Sanjay Kumar Yadav and Others v. State of Bihar, CWJC No. 19842
of 2019; Sri Raju Nama and Others v. The State of Tripura and Others,
WP(C)No. 87 of 2020 – disapproved.
     JAIVEER SINGH AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF                         599
            UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

     Ram Sharan Maurya v. State of U.P., (2021) 5 SCC 401 – held
inapplicable.
      Employees’ State Insurance Corporation v. Union of India and Others
(2022) 11 SCC 392/ 2022 INSC 77; State of Jammu and Kashmir and
Others v. Ajay Dogra (2011) 14 SCC 243 : [2011] 6 SCR 57; Sureshkumar
Lalitkumar Patel and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 167; S. Satyapal Reddy and Others v. Govt. of A.P. and Others
(1994) 4 SCC 391 : [1994] 3 SCR 934; Devender Bhaskar and Others v.
State of Haryana and Others 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1116 – referred to.
      OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
             ORDER AND APPEARANCES
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.7871-7872
of 2023.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2022 in WPSS No.207 of
2021 and dated 14.09.2022 in WPSS No.350 of 2021 of the High Court of
Uttarakhand at Nainital.
     With
     Civil Appeal No. 7873 of 2023.
     Appearances:
     Jatinder Kumar Sethi, D.A.G., U. K. Uniyal, Sr.Adv., Mrs. D. Bharathi
Reddy, Nishant Sharma, Dinesh K. Garg, Abhishek Garg, Dhananjay Garg,
Ishaan Tiwari, Ms. Ishita Bist, R.P. Bansal, Chanakya Gupta, Advs. for the
Appellants.
     V.K. Shukla, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Salman Khurshid, Sr. Advs.,
Suryodaya Prakash Tiwari, Devendra Kumar Shukla, Ms. Shachi Pandey,
Keshari Kumar Tiwari, Aditya Mishra, Ms. Nikita Anand, Suryodaya
Prakash Tiwari, Ms. Shachi Pandey, Ashish Kumar Tiwari, Ms. Lubna
Naaz, Ms. Tehsheena Z Hussain, Rajnish Kumar Jha, Ms. Manisha T.
Karia, Ms. Nidhi Nagpal, Adiya Kesar, Aditya Kesar, Rohan Trivedi,
Ms. Swapnil Baudh, Arun Kumar, Sarang Surendar Chowdhry, Shashank
Surendar Chowdhry, Shivam Surendar Chowdhry, Rameshwar Prasad
Goyal, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Shsntanu Sharma, Ms. Deeksha Gaur, Ms.
600          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 15 S.C.R.


Parul Sharma, Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Ibad Mushtaq, Ms. Akanksha Rai,
Sumeer Sodhi, Dhruv Wadhwa, Ghanshyam Singh, Sonit Sinhmar, Rajnish
Kumar Jha, Advs. for the Respondents.
       JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
                               JUDGMENT
      B. R. GAVAI, J.
      1. Leave granted.
      2. These appeals challenge the common judgment and order dated 14th
September 2022 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in a
bunch of writ petitions which were filed challenging the order dated 10th
February 2021 issued by the Secretary, Department of Elementary Education,
Uttarakhand, Dehradun vide which he recalled his earlier order dated 15th
January 2021. The High Court, vide the impugned judgment and order,
held that the 18 months Diploma in Elementary Education (for short, “D.El.
Ed.”) conducted through the Open and Distance Learning (for short, ‘ODL’)
mode in elementary education by the National Institute of Open Schooling
(hereinafter referred to as ‘NIOS’) is a valid Diploma for applying against
the regular posts of Assistant Teachers (Primary) in the State of Uttarakhand.
The High Court therefore directed the State to consider the candidatures of the
petitioners therein for the said post on the basis of the applications made by
them pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Department of Elementary
Education, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun.
      3. Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 23583-84 of 2022 are filed by
the candidates who are holding the 2 years diploma in elementary education
whereas appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 23943 of 2022 is filed by the
State of Uttarakhand.
      4. Facts in brief giving rise to the present appeals are as under:
      4.1 On 27th August 2009, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “RTE Act”) was notified.
Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act provided that any person
possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic
authority, authorized by the Central Government, by notifications, shall
be eligible for appointment as a teacher. Sub-section (2) thereof enables
     JAIVEER SINGH AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF                            601
      UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

the Central Government, if it deems necessary, by notification, to relax the
minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher, for such
period, not exceeding five years. The first proviso to sub-section (2) thereof
provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of this Act, does not
possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall
acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of five years. The
second proviso to sub-section (2) thereof, which was added by Act 24 of
2017, further provided that a teacher appointed or in position as on the 31st
March 2015, who does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down
under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a
period of four years from the date of commencement of the Right of Children
to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2017 (hereinafter
referred to as “2017 Amendment Act”).
      4.2 The Central Government, through Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Department of School Education & Literacy (hereinafter
referred to as “MHRD”), vide notification dated 31st March 2010 authorized
the National Council for Teacher Education (for short, “NCTE”) as the
academic authority for laying down the minimum qualifications for a person
to be eligible for appointment as a teacher.
     4.3 NCTE, vide notification dated 23rd August 2010, prescribed
minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a
teacher for Class I to VIII.
     4.4 In the year 2012, Government of Uttarakhand promulgated
Uttarakhand Government Elementary Education (Teacher) Service Rules
2012 (hereinafter referred to as “2012 Service Rules”) by invoking powers
conferred under Section 58 of the Uttarakhand School Education Act,
2006. The 2012 Service Rules prescribed minimum eligibility criteria for
appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers in Government Elementary
Schools in the State of Uttarakhand. The 2012 Service Rules were amended
from time to time.
      4.5 On 12th November 2014, NCTE notified National Council for
Teacher Education (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Persons
to be Recruited as Education Teachers and Physical Education Teachers
in Pre-Primary, Primary, Upper Primary, Secondary, Senior Secondary or
Intermediate Schools or Colleges) Regulations 2014 (hereinafter referred
602               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2023] 15 S.C.R.


to as “2014 Regulations”). The 2014 Regulations were in supersession of
all earlier Regulations.
      4.6 In view of the provisions of the second proviso to sub-section (2)
of Section 23 of the RTE Act, MHRD issued a letter on 3rd August 2017
to all the Secretaries of States and Union Territories directing that all the
teachers in Government Schools must possess minimum qualifications as
mandated under the RTE Act and a last chance was being given to all such
teachers to acquire minimum qualifications till 31st March 2019.
     4.7 NCTE issued a recognition order dated 22nd September 2017,
thereby conducting D.El.Ed. programme through ODL mode by NIOS
through the SWAYAM portal of MHRD for in-service untrained teachers at
elementary level working in Government, Government Aided and Unaided
Private Schools. The said recognition order also reduced duration of diploma
from 2 years to 18 months.
      4.8 MHRD, vide its letter dated 11th October 2017, directed NIOS and
the State Governments to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (for short,
“MoU”) enclosed with that letter.
      4.9 On 16th February 2018, NIOS issued an office order thereby
directing its Regional Directors to implement D.El.Ed. course for training
of Untrained In-service Elementary Teachers.
      4.10 It appears that the High Court of Patna had passed a judgment on
    st
21 January 2020 in the case of Sanjay Kumar Yadav and Others v. State
of Bihar1, holdingthat the Director, Primary Education, NCTE has illegally
issued direction that the persons, who had obtained D.El.Ed. course for 18
months by NIOS, are not eligible for appointment on the post of teachers
in Primary Schools.It held that the said direction of the Director, Primary
Education, NCTE was issued on misrepresentation and misreading of the
clarification issued by NCTE.A similar view was taken by the High Court
of Tripura in its judgment dated 12-13th March 2020 in the case of Sri Raju
Nama and Others v. The State of Tripura and Others2.


1        CWJC No. 19842 of 2019
2        WP(C) No. 87 of 2020
     JAIVEER SINGH AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF                           603
      UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

      4.11 On 29th December 2020, the State of Uttarakhand has issued
District-Wise Advertisements for the post of Assistant Teachers in Primary
Schools. The said Advertisements were issued in accordance with the 2012
Service Rules (as amended from time to time).
      4.12 In the meantime, NCTE issued a letter dated 6th January 2021
to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories mentioning
therein that NCTE decided to accept the verdict of the High Court of Patna
in the case of Sanjay Kumar Yadav (supra) and requested to consider all
those candidates who have completed D.El.Ed. course of NIOS through
ODL mode. It further requested that they may be given an opportunity to
apply for fresh recruitment at par with other D.El.Ed. candidates subject to
adherence to all other criteria and qualification requirements.
      4.13 In pursuance of the said letter of NCTE, the Secretary,
Government of Uttarakhand issued a letter dated 15th January 2021 to the
Director, Elementary Education, Uttarakhand to permit such candidates, who
passed 18 months D.El.Ed. Diploma of NIOS through ODL mode, to apply
for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) against vacancies issued through
District-Wise Advertisements. However, shortly thereafter, realizing that,
in the 2012 Service Rules (as amended from time to time), the 18 months
D.El.Ed. Diploma through ODL mode from NIOS was not recognized as
a minimum qualification for eligibility, it issued a communication dated
10th February 2021 withdrawing its earlier letter dated 15th January 2021.
      4.14 The aforesaid letter dated 10 th February 2021 came to be
challenged in a bunch of writ petitions before the High Court. Vide order
dated 3rd March 2021, the High Court directed that the impugned letter
dated 10th February 2021 be kept in abeyance till next date of hearing. The
said order was modified by the High Court on 1 st September 2021 allowing
the selection process to continue subject to final outcome of writ petitions.
      4.15 Vide the impugned judgment and order, the High Court held that
18 months D.El.Ed. Training Diploma conducted through the ODL mode
in elementary education by NIOS cannot be said to be a lower or inferior
qualification as compared with the 2 years D.El.Ed. programme. It held that,
in respect of the in-service teachers, who have undergone the 18 months
D.El.Ed. programme conducted by NIOS through ODL mode, the State
Government cannot discriminate by debarring them from offering their
604          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 15 S.C.R.


candidatures for the post of Assistant Teachers (Primary) in the State of
Uttarakhand. As such, it quashed and set aside the letter dated 10 th February
2021 issued by the Government of Uttarakhand. Being aggrieved thereby,
the present appeals.
      5. We have heard Mr. Jatinder Kumar Sethi, Deputy Advocate General
appearing on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand, Mr. U.K. Uniyal, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in appeals arising out of
SLP(C) Nos. 23583-84 of 2022, and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Mr. V.K. Shukla
and Mr. Salman Khurshid, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the candidates who have completed 18 months diploma in elementary
education. We have also heard Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the interveners supporting the judgment of the High Court and
Ms. Manisha T. Karia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of NCTE.
      6. Mr. Uniyal, on behalf of the appellants, has submitted that the
2014 Regulations clearly provide that the 2 years Diploma in Elementary
Education was an essential qualification for appointment of teachers for Class
I to VIII. It is further submitted that under Clause 4 of the 2014 Regulations,
power is granted to NCTE to relax some of the provisions of the Regulations
for such time period and subject to such conditions and limitations as it
may consider necessary. It further provides that no relaxation would be
granted under the Regulations with regard to minimum qualifications for
appointment of teachers for Level 3 (Class I to VIII) as specified in the
First Schedule. It is further submitted that NCTE recognition order dated
22nd September 2017 for conducting D.El.Ed. programme by NIOS through
ODL mode through the SWAYAM portal of the MHRD was only for the
in-service Untrained Teachers at elementary level working in Government,
Government Aided and Unaided Private Schools appointed on or before
10th August 2017. It is submitted that this is clear from the communication
of NCTE dated 6th September 2019. It is further submitted that the said
communication itself would clarify that insofar as minimum qualifications
for appointment of teachers is concerned, it will be necessary to possess a
2 years Diploma in Elementary Education.
     7. Mr. Sethi, on behalf of the State, specifically submitted that a
qualification of 2 years Diploma in Elementary Education was specifically
prescribed by NCTE in exercise of its powers under Section 23 read with
      JAIVEER SINGH AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF                            605
       UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

Section 2(j) of the RTE Act. It is submitted that the State has accordingly
duly framed 2012 Service Rules in conformity with the prescribed statutory
qualifications. By an executive instruction dated 6th January 2021, NCTE
cannot direct the State Government to amend or override a statutory
regulation. Reliance in this respect is placed on the judgment of this Court
in the case of Employees’ State Insurance Corporation v. Union of India
and Others3.
       8. Mr. Sethi further submitted that neither the Statutory Rules nor
the Advertisement prescribing minimum qualification of 2 years Diploma
in Elementary Education were challenged by any of the appellants. The
original writ petitioners only sought a mandamus to permit them to be also
considered for appointment de-hors the stipulations in the advertisement.
It is submitted that such a mandamus could not have been issued which is
contrary to the minimum qualifications prescribed under the Statutory Rules
and the Advertisement. Reliance in this respect is placed on the judgment
of this Court in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others v.
Ajay Dogra4.
     9. Mr. Sethi further submitted that once an advertisement was issued
and the selection process was set in motion on the basis of 2012 Service
Rules and the Advertisement prescribing minimum qualifications, a
mandamus could not have been issued to change the essential stipulations.
Reliance in this respect is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of
Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others5.
      10. Mr. Sethi further submitted that the High Court erred in doing
the exercise of equalizing 18 months Diploma with 2 years Diploma. It
is submitted that such an exercise was beyond the scope of the powers of
judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
     11. Per contra, Ms. Arora, on behalf of the candidates who have
completed 18 months diploma in elementary education, submitted that
once the State Government had issued a communication dated 15 th January


3   (2022) 11 SCC 392/2022 INSC 77
4   (2011) 14 SCC 243/2011 INSC 281
5   2023 SCC OnLine SC 167/2023 INSC 145
606          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 15 S.C.R.


2021 permitting the candidates who have obtained Diploma of 18 months
duration through ODL mode from NIOS to participate in the selection
process, it was not permissible for the State to withdraw the same vide
communication dated 10th February 2021. It is submitted that the decision
of the State Government taken in letter dated 10th February 2021 is patently
arbitrary. It is submitted that once the 18 months Diploma through ODL
mode by NIOS was recognized by NCTE which is a competent authority,
the State could not have discriminated amongst the candidates who were
having Diploma through a regular 2 years course or 18 months course
through ODL mode. It is submitted that the said would amount to creating
an artificial discrimination amongst the Diploma Holders when both of
them are duly recognized by NCTE. It is submitted that once the candidates
have possessed a Diploma duly recognized by NCTE, they are eligible to
participate in the selection process.
      12. Mr. Khurshid, on behalf of the candidates who have completed 18
months diploma in elementary education, submitted that the court will have
to apply the principle of purposive interpretation. He submitted that making
a special provision for 18 months Diploma through ODL mode by NIOS
was for the purpose of providing a qualification to the Untrained Teachers
who were already working. Once they have acquired that qualification, all
the parties become equal and it is not permissible to discriminate between
the candidates who have completed 18 months diploma and the candidates
who have acquired 2 years Diploma. It is submitted that the court will have
to invoke the principle of implied equivalence. It is submitted that otherwise
the very purpose would be frustrated.
     13. Mr. Shukla, on behalf of the candidates who have completed
18 months diploma in elementary education, submitted that NCTE is a
competent authority having the final word in the matter. It is submitted that
once NCTE, vide its communication dated 6th January 2021 had decided to
accept the verdict of the High Court of Patna in the case of Sanjay Kumar
Yadav (supra) and directed the candidates who have completed D.El.Ed.
course of NIOS through ODL mode to apply for fresh recruitment, the State
could not have acted contrary to the same.
      14. Ms. Karia, on behalf of NCTE, submitted that the High Court has
rightly allowed the writ petitions. It is submitted that the recognition order
      JAIVEER SINGH AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF                            607
       UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

dated 22nd September 2017 was issued by NCTE in exercise of its powers
under Section 14(3)(a) and 15(3)(a) of the National Council for Teacher
Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “NCTE Act”) and Clause
7(6) of the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014
for D.El.Ed. programme vide which it granted recognition for the course
of 18 months including 6 months internship, for the teachers appointed on
or before 10th August 2017. She submitted that the said order was issued as
per the direction of the Central Government received under Section 29 of
the NCTE Act which was binding upon NCTE. She submitted that the order
was issued to enable acquisition of minimum qualification and training of
around 11 lakhs in-service Untrained Teachers by 31st March 2019 all over
India so as to implement 2017 Amendment Act. Reliance in this respect is
placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Sharan Maurya
v. State of U.P.6.
      15. In support of her proposition, Ms. Karia submitted that NCTE was
entitled to provide for the qualifications for appointment of teachers and once
it had issued the recognition order dated 22nd September 2017 providing
for D.El.Ed. programme to be conducted by NIOS through ODL mode,
the diplomas granted were at par with the candidates who had undergone
2 years course. It is therefore submitted that the impugned judgment and
order warrants no interference.
     16. For considering the rival submissions, it will be relevant to refer
to Section 23 of the RTE Act, which reads thus:
     “23. Qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions
     of service of teachers.—(1) Any person possessing such minimum
     qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the
     Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment
     as a teacher.
     (2) Where a State does not have adequate institutions offering courses
     or training in teacher education, or teachers possessing minimum
     qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1) are not available
     in sufficient numbers, the Central Government may, if it deems


6   (2021) 5 SCC 401/2020 INSC 646
608          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 15 S.C.R.


      necessary, by notification, relax the minimum qualifications required
      for appointment as a teacher, for such period, not exceeding five years,
      as may be specified in that notification:
      Provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of this Act, does
      not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1),
      shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of five years:
      [Provided further that every teacher appointed or in position as on the
      31st March, 2015, who does not possess minimum qualifications as laid
      down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications
      within a period of four years from the date of commencement of the
      Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment)
      Act, 2017.]
      (3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms and conditions
      of service of, teachers shall be such as may be prescribed.”
      17. It could thus be seen from sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the
RTE Act that a person, to be eligible for appointment as a teacher, must
possess such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority,
authorised by the Central Government. Sub-section (2) thereof permits
the Central Government to relax the minimum qualifications required for
appointment as a teacher, for such period, not exceeding five years, as may
be specified in that notification. This can be done where a State does not have
adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education, or
teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section
(1) are not available in sufficient numbers. However, the first proviso to
sub-section (2) thereof provides that a teacher who, at the commencement
of this Act, does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under
sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period
of five years.
     18. Through 2017 Amendment Act, a second proviso was added to
sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the RTE Act with retrospective effect from
1st April 2015. It provides that every teacher appointed or in position as
on 31st March 2015, who does not possess minimum qualifications as laid
down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications
within a period of four years from the date of commencement of the 2017
Amendment Act.
      JAIVEER SINGH AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF                             609
       UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

     19. It can further be seen that in exercise of powers conferred under
sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act, the Central Government
authorised NCTE as an academic authority to lay down the minimum
qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher.
Accordingly, NCTE issued a notification on 23rd August 2010 prescribing
the minimum qualifications. The said notification came to be amended by
notification dated 29th July 2011. Undisputedly, the said notification was
issued by NCTE in exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) of Section
23 of the RTE Act.
      20. The Government of Uttarakhand, vide notification dated 28th
August 2012, notified the 2012 Service Rules. The minimum qualifications
provided under the 2012 Service Rules was 2 years Diploma in Elementary
Education (D.El.Ed.) known as B.T.C. in Uttarakhand from the concerned
District Institute of Education and Training/District Resource Centre. The said
2012 Service Rules were amended in the year 2014. However, insofar as the
requirement of 2 years D.El.Ed. course is concerned, it remained the same.
      21. NCTE, in exercise of powers conferred under Clause (dd) of sub-
section (2) of Section 32 read with Section 12A of the NCTE Act, notified
2014 Regulations providing for minimum qualifications. Insofar as Class I
to VIII are concerned, the minimum qualifications as provided in the earlier
notifications remained the same.
      22. As discussed hereinabove, the second proviso to sub-section (2) of
Section 23 of the RTE Act was inserted by 2017 Amendment Act, however,
with retrospective effect from 1st April 2015. As such, the teachers, who were
appointed or in position as on 31st March 2015, were required to acquire
the requisite qualifications within a period of 4 years from 1st Apil 2015.
The communication dated 3rd August 2017 addressed by the Additional
Secretary, MHRD will clarify the position, which reads thus:
     “This is regarding training of untrained in-service elementary teachers
     in the Govt./Govt. Aided/Unaided-Private Schools. It is apprised that
     the Amendment to the Section 23 (2) of the RTE Act to extend the
     period for such training to 31st March, 2019 has been passed by the
     Parliament.
     2. Further, it is reiterated that this will be the last chance to acquire
     the requisite minimum professional qualifications. Any teacher in the
610          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 15 S.C.R.


      aforementioned schools, who does not have the minimum qualifications
      mandated under the RTE Act, 2009, would not be allowed to continue
      in-service beyond 1st April, 2019, and procedure for dismissal shall
      be initiated against such teachers.”
      23. It is thus clear that all such teachers working in either Government/
Government Aided/Unaided Private Schools, were required to acquire the
minimum qualifications by 31st March 2019 or they would face dismissal
from service. It appears that it was decided by the Central Government to
provide a window for all such teachers. A perusal of the said communication
would reveal that various directions were issued so that lakhs of teachers,
who were untrained, get the requisite qualifications prior to 1st April 2019.
The communication addressed by the Director, Elementary Education,
Uttarakhand dated 8th September 2017 to the Chief Education Officer and
District Education Officer, Uttarakhand would further clarify this position.
      24. It appears that, in furtherance of the directions issued by MHRD,
NCTE issued recognition order on 22nd September 2017. It will be relevant
to refer to the Preamble of the said recognition order, which reads thus:
      “WHEREAS, the matter of recognition of the Project Proposal of
      National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) Noida for D.EI.Ed.
      (ODL) programme through SWAYAM Portal of MHRD for training
      of in-service untrained teachers was considered by NRC and NRC
      over served as follows –
      AND WHEREAS, the NCTE has received directions under Section
      29 of the NCTE Act, 1993 from the Ministry of Human Resource
      Development vide their letters no. 11-15/2017-EE-l0 dated 21.08.2017
      and 04.09.2017. The project proposal for recognition of Diploma in
      Elementary Education (D.E1.Ed.) programme through ODL mode
      has been submitted by National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS)
      to NCTE Headquarter). The proposal is for conducting on line D.El.
      Ed. programme through the SWAYAM portal of the Ministry of HRD
      for the in- service untrained teachers at elementary level working in
      Government/ Government aided and unaided private schools in the
      country.
      AND WHEREAS, the said project proposal has been considered by an
      expert committee constituted by NCTE vide order 131 dated 19-09-
      JAIVEER SINGH AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF                               611
       UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

     2017. The Committee considered the project and found that the NIOS
     is adequately prepared to conduct the programme and the curriculum
     proposed therein meets the requirement of the D.El.Ed. (ODL)
     AND WHEREAS, In view of above mentioned directions of the
     Ministry of Human Resource Development under Section-29 of the
     NCTE Act, 1993 and after considering the recommendation of the
     Expert Committee, Chairperson NCTE in exercise of his powers
     under clause 12 of the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure)
     Regulations, 2014 -granted relaxation vide NCTE Hqrs letter no.
     NCTE-Regul0ll/66/2017-US (Regulation)- HQ dated 21-09-2017
     & letter dated 22.09.2017 to the following provisions in the NCTE
     Regulations-2014 for ensuring that the directives of the MHRD for
     implementing the amendment to the RTE Act, 2009 are duly fulfilled.”
      25. It is thus clear that the said recognition order was issued so that the
directives of MHRD for implementing the 2017 Amendment Act were duly
fulfilled. It appears that since the time-gap between the directions issued by
MHRD and 31st March 2019 was only about 18 months, the period of course
was reduced from 2 years to 18 months. This position would be clarified
from the said recognition order itself, which reads thus:
     “II. Any provision related to the duration of the Programme so as to
     reduce it to 18 months instead of 2 years and the requirement of 6
     months internship to be subsumed within the duration of 18 months”
      26. The letter dated 11th October 2017 addressed by the Additional
Secretary, MHRD to the Secretaries to the State Governments would further
clarify this position. Around 12,91,880 in-service elementary teachers had
registered and made payment on the NIOS portal as on 30 th September
2017. It is also clear from the said communication that the said course was
exclusively made for ensuring that only in-service elementary teachers are
registered for D.El.Ed. course.
      27. It is further to be noted that a communication was addressed by
the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar seeking clarification with regard to appointment of Primary Teachers
possessing D.El.Ed. (ODL) qualification from NIOS. It will be relevant to
refer to the reply of NCTE dated 6th September 2019, which reads thus:
612           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 15 S.C.R.


      “I am directed to refer to your letter dated 29-08-2019 on the subject
      noted above and to say that your representation regarding appointment
      of primary teachers qualified with D.El.Ed. (ODL) from NIOS has
      been examined. The primary notifications are those dated 23-08-
      20l0 and 29-07-2011 (determination of minimum qualifications for
      appointment of teachers, Appendix-9 and the order dated 22-09- 2017
      issued from NRC, NCTE to NIOS granting recognition to D.El.Ed.
      (ODL) Programme. The following points are inferred from the above
      notifications (copies enclosed).
      I.    As per the NCTE Notification dated 23-08-2010 and 29-07-2011
            one of the minimum qualification for appointment of teachers
            for class I-V and VI- VIII is two year Diploma in Elementary
            Education (emphasis added).
      II.   As per the NRC NCTE order dated 22-09-2017 the D.El.Ed.
            (ODL) programme of NIOS is only for those un-trained in-service
            teachers in Govt./Govt. aided/private unaided schools appointed
            on or before 10-08-2017. The duration of this programme is 18
            months (emphasis added).
      2. Hence for the fresh appointment of teachers for primary and upper
      ‘primary level, the notification dated 23-08-2010 and 29-07-2011 need
      to be strictly adhered to TET is also a mandatory requirement.”
       28. It can thus clearly be seen that as on 6th September 2019, it is also
the view of the NCTE that the minimum qualifications for appointment of
teachers for Class I to VIII is a 2 years Diploma in Elementary Education.
It further clarifies that NCTE recognition order dated 22nd September 2017
was only for those untrained in-service teachers in Government/Government
Aided/Unaided Private Schools, who were appointed on or before 10 th
August 2017. It further clarifies that for fresh appointment of teachers for
Primary and Upper Primary level, NCTE notifications dated 23rd August
2010 and 29th July 2011 need to be strictly adhered to. It is further to be
noted that whereas notifications dated 23rd August 2010 and 29th July 2011
specifically refer to powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 23
of the RTE Act, NCTE recognition order dated 22nd September 2017 refers
only to the directives issued by MHRD under Section 29 of the NCTE Act.
     JAIVEER SINGH AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF                            613
      UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

      29. It is thus clear that the entire scheme was for the purpose of
providing a window to the in-service teachers inasmuch as unless they would
have acquired requisite qualifications prior to 1st April 2019, they could not
have continued to remain in service and would have faced dismissal from
service. As such, we find that the High Court has erred in holding that the
18 months Diploma conducted by NIOS through ODL mode is equivalent
to 2 years Diploma as provided in the notifications of NCTE dated 23rd
August 2010 and 29th July 2011.
       30. In the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has relied on
the judgments of the High Court of Patna in the case of Sanjay Kumar Yadav
(supra) and High Court of Tripura in the case of Sri Raju Nama (supra).
It is to be noted that, in the judgment of the High Court of Patna, though a
reference has been made to the communication addressed by NCTE to the
Additional Chief Secretary, Bihar, it brushed aside the said communication
on the ground that it is nowhere mentioned that the said course cannot be
treated at par with the 2 years training course. In the absence of a specific
order of NCTE granting equivalence to the 18 months course with the 2
years course, in our view, the High Court has totally erred in finding that
since the said communication does not mention non-equivalence, it would
be deemed to be equivalent.
      31. We find that the High Court of Patna has totally erred in not giving
effect to the stand of NCTE. As a matter of fact, we fail to understand as to
why NCTE did not challenge the said order when its specific stand that the
said 18 months course was only for in-service candidates and not applicable
to fresh ones was rejected by the High Court. We also fail to understand
as to why vide communication dated 6th January 2021, NCTE decided to
accept the said judgment of the High Court of Patna.
     32. Insofar as the High Court of Tripura is concerned, it again relies
on the judgment of the High Court of Patna in the case of Sanjay Kumar
Yadav (supra). We therefore find that the views taken by both the High Court
of Patna and the High Court of Tripura were not correct in law.
     33. We further find that the 2012 Service Rules as framed by the State
of Uttarakhand were framed on the basis of notifications issued by NCTE
on 23rd August 2010 and 29th July 2011. These 2012 Service Rules were
amended from time to time and as existing on the date of advertisement, they
614          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 15 S.C.R.


specifically provide for a 2 years D.El.Ed. course known as B.T.C. training
in the State of Uttarakhand as a minimum qualification. It also provided
that a person to be eligible to apply for the said post must have completed
2 years D.El.Ed. course from NIOS and qualified Teacher Eligibility Test
(TET) or who has completed 2 years D.El.Ed. course from any other Institute
recognized by NCTE and qualified TET. The advertisements issued by
various District Education Officers also provided the same qualifications. It
can thus be seen that acquiring of 2 years Diploma in Elementary Education
was a minimum qualification as prescribed under the statutory Rules. It will
be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case
of Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (supra), wherein this Court
has referred to its earlier judgments including that of a Constitution Bench:
      “15. A Constitution Bench in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan
      [Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1910 :
      (1968) 1 SCR 111] considered the applicability of the letters issued
      by the Government of India detailing the administrative practice for
      promotions, against the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority)
      Rules, 1954. The Constitution Bench held that : (AIR p. 1914, para 7)
           “7. We proceed to consider the next contention of Mr N.C.
           Chatterjee that in the absence of any statutory rules governing
           promotions to selection grade posts the Government cannot issue
           administrative instructions and such administrative instructions
           cannot impose any restrictions not found in the Rules already
           framed. We are unable to accept this argument as correct. It is
           true that there is no specific provision in the Rules laying down
           the principle of promotion of junior or senior grade officers to
           selection grade posts. But that does not mean that till statutory
           rules are framed in this behalf the Government cannot issue
           administrative instructions regarding the principle to be followed
           in promotions of the officers concerned to selection grade posts.
           It is true that Government cannot amend or supersede statutory
           rules by administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent
           on any particular point Government can fill up the gaps and
           supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with
           the rules already framed.”
                                                        (emphasis supplied)
JAIVEER SINGH AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF                           615
 UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

16. In Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal [Union of India v.
Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147 : (2014) 3 SCC (L&S)
405] a two-Judge Bench of this Court speaking in the context of service
regulations governing a departmental enquiry reiterated that an office
order or office memorandum cannot contravene statutory rules. B.S.
Chauhan, J. noted the position in law in the following terms : (SCC
p. 172, para 59)
     “59. The law laid down above has consistently been followed
     and it is a settled proposition of law that an authority cannot
     issue orders/office memorandum/executive instructions in
     contravention of the statutory rules. However, instructions can be
     issued only to supplement the statutory rules but not to supplant
     it. Such instructions should be subservient to the statutory
     provisions. (Vide Union of India v. Majji Jangamayya [Union
     of India v. Majji Jangamayya, (1977) 1 SCC 606 : 1977 SCC
     (L&S) 191] , P.D. Aggarwal v. State of U.P. [P.D. Aggarwal
     v. State of U.P., (1987) 3 SCC 622 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 310] ,
     Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India [Paluru Ramkrishnaiah
     v. Union of India, (1989) 2 SCC 541 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 375] , C.
     Rangaswamaiah v. Karnataka Lokayukta [C. Rangaswamaiah v.
     Karnataka Lokayukta, (1998) 6 SCC 66 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1448]
     and Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots’ Assn. of India v.
     DG of Civil Aviation [Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots’
     Assn. of India v. DG of Civil Aviation, (2011) 5 SCC 435] .)”
                                                  (emphasis supplied)
17. In P.D. Aggarwal v. State of U.P. [P.D. Aggarwal v. State of U.P.,
(1987) 3 SCC 622 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 310] a two-Judge Bench of this
Court declined to grant primacy to an office memorandum issued by
the Government of Uttar Pradesh which purportedly amended the
method of recruitment of Assistant Civil Engineers in the U.P. Public
Service Commission without amending the relevant regulations. The
Court held : (SCC p. 640, para 20)
     “20. The office memorandum dated 7-12-1961 which purports
     to amend the United Provinces Service of Engineers (Buildings
     and Roads Branch) Class II Rules, 1936 in our opinion cannot
616           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 15 S.C.R.


           override, amend or supersede statutory rules. This memorandum
           is nothing but an administrative order or instruction and as
           such it cannot amend or supersede the statutory rules by adding
           something therein as has been observed by this Court inSant
           Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan [Sant Ram Sharma v. State of
           Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1910 : (1968) 1 SCR 111] . Moreover
           the benefits that have been conferred on the temporary Assistant
           Engineers who have become members of the service after being
           selected by the Public Service Commission in accordance with
           the service rules are entitled to have their seniority reckoned in
           accordance with the provisions of Rule 23 as it was then, from
           the date of their becoming member of the service, and this cannot
           be taken away by giving retrospective effect to the Rules of 1969
           and 1971 as it is arbitrary, irrational and not reasonable.”
                                                         (emphasis supplied)”
       34. It can thus be seen that it is a trite law that the Government cannot
amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, but if the
rules are silent on any particular point, it can fill up the gaps and supplement
the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed.
It is a settled proposition of law that an authority cannot issue orders/office
memorandum/executive instructions in contravention of the statutory rules.
However, instructions can be issued only to supplement the statutory rules
but not to supplant it.
       35. As already discussed hereinabove, NCTE recognition order
dated 22nd September 2017 was issued so as to give effect to the directives
of MHRD dated 8th September 2017 so as to provide a one-time window
to the teachers who were already working and who in terms of the 2017
Amendment Act were required to acquire the minimum qualifications prior
to 1st April 2019. The said order, in any case, cannot be held to be a direction
to the State of Uttarakhand to act in contravention of its 2012 Service Rules
and the advertisements issued on the basis of such Service Rules.
      36. We further find that the finding of the High Court that the 18 months
D.El.Ed. Diploma (ODL) course in Elementary Education conducted by
NIOS is equal to 2 years Diploma is erroneous. There is no notification to
that effect issued by NCTE in supersession of its notifications dated 23 rd
      JAIVEER SINGH AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF                            617
       UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

August 2010 and 29th July 2011, wherein it provided minimum 2 years
Diploma as a minimum qualification for appointment of teachers. At the
cost of repetition, we clarify that the notifications dated 23rd August 2010
and 29th July 2011 of NCTE, were issued in exercise of its powers conferred
under Section 23(1) of the RTE Act whereas recognition order dated 22 nd
September 2017 order was passed in pursuance of the directions issued by
MHRD under Section 29 of the NCTE Act.
      37. Assuming for a moment that the 18 months D.El.Ed. Diploma by
NIOS through ODL mode is equivalent to the 2 years Diploma in Elementary
Education recognized under the notifications of NCTE dated 23 rd August
2010 and 29th July 2011, the next question that has to be answered is, can
the State be prohibited from prescribing the minimum qualifications which
is higher than that. A similar question arose for consideration in the case of
S. Satyapal Reddy and Others v. Govt. of A.P. and Others 7, wherein this
Court observed thus:
     “7. ……The Governor has been given power under proviso to
     Article 309 of the Constitution, subject to any law made by the State
     Legislature, to make rules regulating the recruitment which includes
     prescription of qualifications for appointment to an office or post
     under the State. Since the Transport Department under the Act is
     constituted by the State Government and the officers appointed to those
     posts belong to the State service, while appointing its own officers,
     the State Government as a necessary adjunct is entitled to prescribe
     qualifications for recruitment or conditions of service. But while so
     prescribing, the State Government may accept the qualifications
     or prescribe higher qualification but in no case prescribe any
     qualification less than the qualifications prescribed by the Central
     Government under sub-section (4) of Section 213 of the Act…….”
                                                        [emphasis supplied]
      38. We therefore find that the High Court has erred in directing the
State Government to consider the candidates who did not qualify as per the
2012 Service Rules and as per the advertisement based on the Service Rules,
particularly when the 2012 Service Rules and the advertisements were not


7   (1994) 4 SCC 391/1994 INSC 196
618            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 15 S.C.R.


under challenge. The High Court, in our view, could not have issued such
a mandamus contrary to such Service Rules.
      39. That leaves us with the question as to whether the High Court was
justified in holding that the 18 months Diploma conducted by NIOS through
ODL mode is said to be equivalent to the 2 years Diploma as required under
the notifications of NCTE dated 23rd August 2010 and 29th July 2011.
     40. It will be relevant to refer to the observations of this Court in the
case of Devender Bhaskar and Others v. State of Haryana and Others 8,
which read thus:
       “21. In Mohammad Shujat Ali v. Union of India, (1975) 3 SCC 76
       it was held that the question regarding equivalence of educational
       qualifications is a technical question based on proper assessment and
       evaluation of the relevant academic standards and practical attainments
       of such qualifications. It was further held that where the decision of
       the Government is based on the recommendation of an expert body,
       then the Court, uninformed of relevant data and unaided by technical
       insights necessary for the purpose of determining equivalence, would
       not lightly disturb the decision of the Government unless it is based
       on extraneous or irrelevant considerations or actuated mala fides or is
       irrational and perverse or manifestly wrong.
       22. In J. Ranga Swamy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (1990)
       1 SCC 288 this Court held that it is not for the court to consider the
       relevance of qualification prescribed for various posts.
       23. In State of Rajasthan v. Lata Arun, (2002) 6 SCC 252 this Court
       held that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a
       course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be
       considered by the appropriate authority. It was held thus:
             “13. From the ratio of the decisions noted above, it is clear that
             the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course
             or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be
             considered by the appropriate authority. It is not for courts to
             decide whether a particular educational qualification should


8     2021 SCC OnLine SC 1116/2021 INSC 783
     JAIVEER SINGH AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF                               619
      UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

           or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification
           prescribed by the authority.”
     24. In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal, (2009)
     1 SCC 610 this Court has reiterated that equivalence is a technical
     academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of
     the academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be
     by a specific order or resolution, duly published. Dealing specifically
     with whether a distance education course was equivalent to the degree
     of MA (English) of the appellant university therein, the Court held
     that no material had been produced before it to show that the distance
     education course had been recognized as such.
     25. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad (2019) 2 SCC
     404, it was held that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe
     qualifications as a condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration
     the nature of the job, the aptitude required for efficient discharge of
     duties, functionality of various qualifications, course content leading
     up to the acquisition of various qualifications, etc. Judicial review can
     neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide
     the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given
     qualification. Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as
     recruiting authority, to determine.
     26. Having regard to the above, in our view, the High Court has
     erred in holding that the diploma/degree in Art and Craft given by
     the Kurukshetra University is equivalent to two-year Diploma in Art
     and Craft examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training
     Department or diploma in Art and Craft conducted by Director,
     Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana.”
      41. In view of what has been held by this Court hereinabove, we find
that the High Court erred in holding that 18 months Diploma conducted
by NIOS through ODL mode is equivalent to the 2 years regular Diploma,
particularly so, when there was no material placed on record to even remotely
hold that such a qualification was recommended by the Expert Body NCTE.
On the contrary, the communication dated 6th September 2019 of NCTE, the
directives of MHRD so also the recognition order dated 22nd September 2017
clearly go on to show that the 18 months Diploma was provided as a one
620            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 15 S.C.R.


time window to the in-service teachers to acquire the minimum qualifications
between the 2017 Amendment Act and the outer limit of 1st April 2019. In
our considered view, the High Court has totally erred in holding that the 2
years Diploma is equivalent to 18 months Diploma.
      42. That leaves us with the reliance placed by the learned counsel for
NCTE on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Sharan Maurya
(supra). There can be no doubt that NCTE, as an expert body, has a right
to prescribe the minimum qualifications. In the present case itself, by
notifications dated 23rd August 2010 and 29th July 2011, NCTE has done so.
As already discussed hereinabove, recognition order dated 22nd September
2017 only provides a window for in-service teachers to complete their
course prior to 1st April 2019. As such, the said judgment does not apply
to the present case.
      43. In the result, we pass the following order:
      (i)   The appeals are allowed;
      (ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 14th September 2022
           passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital is quashed
           and set aside; and
      (iii) The writ petitions filed by the original writ petitioners are
            dismissed.
     44. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of in the above
terms.


Headnotes prepared by:                                         Appeals allowed.
Nidhi Jain