Supreme Court of India
KOUSIK DAS & ORS.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 448
- Decided
- 4 April 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The Supreme Court held that teachers who were in service on 10 August 2017 and completed the 18‑month D.El.Ed. through NIOS before 1 April 2019 are valid diploma holders, rendering the High Court’s blanket ban unlawful and its orders quashed.
Summary
The petitioners, who were in‑service elementary teachers as of 10 August 2017, completed an 18‑month Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) through NIOS under the NCTE’s ODL scheme and applied for recruitment under a 2022 West Bengal notification. The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Jaiveer Singh, issued a blanket prohibition on recruiting any candidates holding the 18‑month NIOS diploma, which the petitioners challenged. The Supreme Court examined the statutory framework of the RTE Act’s Section 23, the 2014 NCTE Regulations, and the 2017 amendment that created a one‑time window for in‑service teachers to acquire qualifications before 1 April 2019. It reiterated that the Jaiveer Singh judgment, clarified by the later Viswanath orders, applies only to teachers who were in service on the cut‑off date and completed the 18‑month programme before the deadline, treating them as valid diploma holders. Consequently, the Court held that the High Court’s blanket ban was erroneous and quashed both the single‑judge and division‑bench orders, directing the recruitment authorities to consider the eligible petitioners. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court’s order banning recruitment of teachers holding an 18‑month D.El.Ed. obtained through NIOS is sustainable in view of the Supreme Court’s judgments in Jaiveer Singh and Viswanath.
Legislation cited
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether in light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Jaiveer Singh & Ors. v. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. and the order of this Court in the case of Viswanath v. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is Headnotes† Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 – s.23 – NCTE (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 – A notification dated 29.09.2022 was issued by the WBBPE for the recruitment of qualified trained candidates to the posts of
Subjects
RecruitmentBlanket banQualificationDiploma holderPromotional avenuesGovernment/Government Aided/Unaided-Private SchoolsUntrained teachersRequisite minimum qualifications
Judgment
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 695 : 2025 INSC 448
Kousik Das & Ors.
v.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 4963 of 2025)
04 April 2025
[B.R. Gavai* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether in light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Jaiveer
Singh & Ors. v. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. and the order of
this Court in the case of Viswanath v. The State of Uttarakhand &
Ors. the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is liable
to be quashed and set aside.
Headnotes†
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 –
s.23 – NCTE (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations,
2014 – A notification dated 29.09.2022 was issued by the WBBPE
for the recruitment of qualified trained candidates to the posts
of Assistant Teachers in Government Aided/Government
Sponsored/Junior Basic Primary Schools – On 06.07.2023,
a Writ Petition came to be filed before the High Court with a
prayer that the High Court direct the respondent-authorities
to give preference to such of the candidates who have
completed their D.El.Ed. programme over a period of 2 years
from recognized institutions over those candidates who have
obtained their D.El.Ed. through the 18 months programme
by NIOS – The Single Judge of the High Court directed the
WBBPE to not recruit any teachers holding D.El.Ed. issued
by NIOS under ODL mode i.e., the 18 months course from the
recruitment process of the year 2022 onwards – The Division
Bench of the High Court dismissed the intra-court appeal –
Correctness:
Held: Though the Single Judge of the High Court placed reliance
on paragraph 56 of the judgment of this Court in the case of
Jaiveer Singh it came to the wrong conclusion inasmuch as it
put a blanket ban on all teachers holding an 18 months D.El.Ed.
* Author
696 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
through NIOS – It is clear that the judgment of this Court in the
case of Jaiveer Singh unequivocally held that the entire scheme
emanating from the NCTE Recognition Order dated 22.09.2017
was for the purpose of providing a window to the in-service
teachers inasmuch as unless they would have acquired requisite
qualifications prior to 01.04.2019, they would not have continued to
remain in service and would have faced dismissal from service –
As such, any teacher who was inservice as on 10.08.2017 and
who acquired the qualification of D.El.Ed. by way of the 18 months
programme through NIOS prior to 01.04.2019 is a valid diploma
holder and at par with any other teacher who has completed the
2 years D.El. Ed. Programme – Also, by order dated 10.12.2024
in batch of Review Petitions and Miscellaneous applications filed
in case of Jaiveer Singh, this Court clarified that the 18 months
diploma obtained by such persons, who were in employment as
on 10.08.2017 and who have completed the diploma course of 18
months, would be treated as valid diploma holders for the purpose
of applying in other institutions or for promotional avenues –
Thereafter, again on 05.03.2025, this Court faced with a similar
situation in IA No.37419 of 2025 in T.P. (C)No. 42-43 of 2025 titled
as Viswanath v. The State of Uttrakhand & Ors. held that such
of the teachers who were in employment as on 10.08.2017 and
who had undertaken the 18 months D.El.Ed. through NIOS would
be treated as valid diploma holders for the purposes of applying
to other institutions or for promotional avenues – Therefore, in
light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Jaiveer Singh
so also the order dated 10.12.2024 in the case of Viswanath, the
impugned judgment and order of the High Court is not sustainable.
[Paras 32, 33, 36, 38, 39]
Case Law Cited
Jaiveer Singh & Ors. v. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. [2023]
15 SCR 597 : 2023 SCC Online SC 1584; Viswanath & Ors.
v. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors., Review Petition (C)
No. … of 2024 [Diary No. 4961/2024]; Viswanath v. The State of
Uttarakhand & Ors., IA No. 37419 of 2025 in T.P. (C) No. 42-43
of 2025 – referred to.
List of Acts
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009;
NCTE (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 697
Kousik Das & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
List of Keywords
Recruitment; Blanket ban; Qualification; Diploma holder; Promotional
avenues; Government/Government Aided/Unaided-Private Schools;
Untrained teachers; Requisite minimum qualifications.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4963 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.07.2024 of the High Court
at Calcutta in MAT No. 817 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Advs.,
Tushar Srivastava, Suryodaya Prakash Kumari, Gaurav Singh,
Ms. Shreya Nair, Mandeep Kalra, Vaibhav Yadav, Ms. Anushna
Satapathy, Ms. Radhika Jalan, Yashas J, Ms. Widaphi Lyngdoh,
Ms. Anchita Nayyar, Ms. Shefali Tripathi, Santosh Kumar, Praveen
Gaur.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Biswajit Deb, Jaideep Gupta, Gagan Gupta, Arijit Prasad, Sr.
Advs., Anando Mukherjee, Shwetank Singh, Kunal Chatterji, Ms.
Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit Bansal, Ms. Shalini Chandra, Ms.
Nandita Mishra, , Abhinay, Ms. Deeksha Prakash, Ms. Kirti Vyas,
Navin Prakash, Ms. Srishti Prakash, Ms. Sakshi Vats, Arun Kumar,
Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Dibyadyuti Banerjee, Ms. Sumedha
Halder, Abhijit Sengupta, Paras Chauhan, Navneet Kansal, Manoj
Kumar, Suryodaya Prakash Tiwari, Devendra Kumar Shukla,
Ms. Shachi Pandey.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
B.R. Gavai, J.
1. Interlocutory Applications No. 214706/2024, 2138/2025, 11267/2025,
11487/2025, 14658/2025, 20935/2025 and 40978/2025 are allowed.
2. Leave granted.
698 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
3. The appellants take exception to the final judgment and order dated
24th July 2024 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court at
Calcutta in MAT 817 of 2024, whereby the Division Bench of the
High Court dismissed the intra-court appeal filed by some of the
appellants before this Court thereby affirming the judgment and order
dated 29th February 2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of the
High Court in W.P.A. No. 16118 of 2023.
4. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under.
4.1 The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
2009 (hereinafter, “RTE Act”) came into force on 1st April 2010.
Section 23 of the RTE Act is concerned with the qualifications
for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers.
It is to be noted that sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the
RTE Act provides that 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. Pursuant thereto the Central
Government has, by a Gazette Notification, authorized the
National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter, “NCTE”)
as the academic authority.
4.2 On 28th November 2014, the NCTE, in supersession of the
previous regulations, prescribed the NCTE (Recognition, Norms
and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter, “2014 NCTE
Regulations”).
4.3 On 3rd August 2017, the Central Government through Ministry
of Human Resource Development (MHRD), by way of a letter
addressed to the Principal Secretary/Secretary Education of all
States and Union Territories (UTs) apprised them that in terms of
Section 23 of the RTE Act, the in-service untrained elementary
teachers in the Government/Government Aided/Unaided-Private
Schools are required to be trained. It was further informed that
the period for such training is being extended to 31st March 2019
by way of an amendment to the RTE Act and that this will be
the last chance to acquire the requisite minimum qualifications
and that any untrained teacher would not be allowed to continue
in-service beyond 1st April 2019. Thereafter, on 10th August
2017 the amendment to the RTE Act (Act No. 24 of 2017) was
notified by way of a Gazette Notification.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 699
Kousik Das & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
4.4 On 22nd September 2017, the NCTE, after considering the
recommendations of an Expert Committee, granted relaxation to
certain provisions of the 2014 NCTE Regulations for ensuring
compliance with the directions of the Central Government in
terms of the letter dated 3rd August 2017. It is to be noted that the
duration of the Diploma in Elementary Education (hereinafter,
“D. El. Ed.”) programme was reduced to 18 months instead of
2 years by including/subsuming the 6 months internship within
the 18 months. It is further to be noted that the NCTE granted
recognition/approval to National Institute of Open Schooling
(hereinafter, “NIOS”) for conducting the 18 months D. El. Ed.
programme through Online Distance Learning (hereinafter,
“ODL”) mode via the SWAYAM Portal of MHRD for training of
such of the in-service untrained teachers by 31st March 2019.
4.5 It appears that the appellants, in terms of the aforesaid
recognition order, completed their 18 months D. El. Ed.
programme through NIOS.
4.6 On 29th September 2022, the West Bengal Board of Primary
Education (hereinafter, “WBBPE”) issued a notification for
recruitment of qualified trained candidates to the posts
of Assistant Teachers in Government Aided/Government
Sponsored/Junior Basic Primary Schools.
4.7 On 6th July 2023, a set of candidates desirous of recruitment to
the post of Assistant Teachers in terms of the notification dated
29th September 2022 filed a Writ Petition before the High Court
at Calcutta. It was their specific averment that D. El. Ed. is a
course of 2 years and that any candidate who has obtained
the qualification pursuant to the programme through NIOS i.e.,
by sitting for the 18 months D. El. Ed. programme, should not
be considered for the purposes of recruitment in terms of the
recruitment notification dated 29th September 2022 issued by
the WBBPE. It was their prayer in the Writ Petition that the
High Court direct the respondent-authorities to give preference
to such of the candidates who have completed their D. El. Ed.
programme over a period of 2 years from recognized institutions
over those candidates who have obtained their D. El. Ed.
through the 18 months programme by NIOS. It was their further
prayer that the High Court direct the respondent-authorities to
not only restrict the 18 months NIOS trained candidates but
700 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
also to declare that the 18 months programme by NIOS is
not at all identical to the 2 years D. El. Ed. programme from
a recognized institution.
4.8 During the pendency of the aforesaid Writ Petition before the
learned Single Judge of the High Court, this Court delivered
the judgment in the case of Jaiveer Singh & Ors. vs. The
State of Uttarakhand & Ors.1.
4.9 On 29th February 2024, the learned Single Judge of the High
Court, after referring to the judgment of this Court in the case
of Jaiveer Singh, disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the
WBBPE to not recruit any teachers holding D. El. Ed. issued
by NIOS under ODL mode i.e., the 18 months course from the
recruitment process of the year 2022 onwards.
4.10 Aggrieved thereby, some of the appellants herein filed an intra-
court appeal before the High Court.
4.11 On 24th July 2024, the Division Bench of the High Court, by
placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of
Jaiveer Singh, dismissed the intra-court appeal.
4.12 Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed the present appeal by
way of special leave.
4.13 On 14th August 2024, a co-ordinate bench of this Court issued
notice in the present appeal and tagged it with Transfer Petition
(Civil) Nos. 1995-1997 of 2024.
4.14 It is pertinent to note that on 10th December 2024, a bench of
this Court, of which one of us (B. R. Gavai, J.) was a party,
passed an order in the case of Viswanath & Ors. vs. The
State of Uttarakhand & Ors.2 in a batch of matters containing
Review Petitions and Miscellaneous Applications essentially
seeking a review of the judgment of this Court in the case of
Jaiveer Singh.
4.15 On 21st February 2025, another co-ordinate bench of this Court,
taking note of the fact that the judgment of this Court in the
1 [2023] 15 SCR 597 : 2023 SCC Online SC 1584
2 Review Petition (C) No. … of 2024 [Diary No. 4961/2024]
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 701
Kousik Das & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
case of Jaiveer Singh so also the subsequent clarification by
the order of this Court in the case of Viswanath was rendered
by a bench comprising of one of us (B.R. Gavai, J.), directed
the Registry to place the present appeal before the Hon’ble
Chief Justice of India for listing the matter before an appropriate
bench. That is how the present appeal has come up for hearing.
5. We have heard Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Smt. Vibha
Datta Makhija learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants
and Shri Jaideep Gupta learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent-authorities.
6. Shri Sankaranarayanan learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellants submitted that the Central Government through
MHRD by way of a letter dated 31st August 2017 had extended
the period for training of such of the in-service untrained teachers
in Government/Government Aided/Unaided-Private Schools to 31st
March 2019. It is further submitted that the NCTE relaxed certain
provisions of the 2014 NCTE Regulations thereby reducing the
course duration of the 2 years D. El. Ed. programme to 18 months.
It is, therefore, submitted that any teacher who was in-service as
on 10th August 2017 and who has undertaken the 18 months D.
El. Ed. programme through NIOS before 31st March 2019 is to be
considered a valid diploma holder for the purpose of continuing in
service, promotional avenues and for applying to other institutions.
7. It is submitted by Shri Sankaranarayanan that all the appellants
were in-service as on 10th August 2017 and further that they had
completed the 18 months D. El. Ed. programme through NIOS
before 31st March 2019, so the judgment of this Court in the case of
Jaiveer Singh, which covers only such of the teachers who failed
to fulfil the aforesaid requirements, does not oust them in any way.
8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
submitted that this Court by way of the order in the case of Viswanath
clarified that such of the teachers who were in employment as on
10th August 2017 and who have completed the diploma course of 18
months would be treated as valid diploma holders. It was, therefore,
submitted that in light of the judgment of this Court in the case of
Jaiveer Singh and the order passed by this Court in the case of
Viswanath, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court be quashed and set-aside.
702 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
9. Per contra the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-authorities submitted that the judgment of this Court in
the case of Jaiveer Singh specifically notes that the 18 months D.
El. Ed. programme through NIOS was only to bring such of the in-
service untrained teachers at par with the eligibility requirements. It
is, therefore, submitted that such of the appellants who completed
an 18 months D. El. Ed. programme after the cut-off date of 31st
March 2019 cannot be treated at par with such of the teachers who
have completed a 2 years D. El. Ed. programme.
10. It is submitted by Shri Gupta that not only a valid diploma but also
other requirements such as clearing the Teacher Eligibility Test
(hereinafter, “TET”), etc., in terms of the recruitment notification
dated 29th September 2022 issued by WBBPE have to be fulfilled
so as to be considered for appointment to the post of a teacher in
a school. It was, however, fairly submitted by the learned Senior
Counsel that such of the appellants who fulfill the eligibility criteria
in terms of the prevailing recruitment notification can be considered
for appointment subject to proper verification regarding their eligibility
and regularity.
11. The only issue before this Court in the present appeal, therefore, is
to ascertain as to whether in light of the judgment of this Court in
the case of Jaiveer Singh and the order of this Court in the case
of Viswanath the impugned judgment and order of the High Court
is liable to be quashed and set aside.
12. It cannot be gainsaid that in exercise of powers conferred under sub-
section (1) of Section 23 of the RTE Act, the Central Government
authorised the NCTE as the academic authority to lay down the
minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment
as a teacher. Pursuant thereto, on 28th November 2014, the NCTE
in supersession of the previous regulations prescribed the 2014
NCTE Regulations. It is relevant to note that Clause 9 of the 2014
NCTE Regulations provides the “Norms and Standards” that every
institution offering the teacher education programmes, as specified
in Appendix 1 to 15 thereto shall have to comply with. Appendix 2
concerns the D. El. Ed. which is a 2-year professional programme
that aims to prepare teachers for classes I to VIII. Appendix 9 is
concerned with D. El. Ed. through ODL System and it is having
duration of 2 academic sessions/years. It can, therefore, be seen
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 703
Kousik Das & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
that the D. El. Ed. programme, whether it is through regular mode
(Appendix 2) or ODL System (Appendix 9) was envisaged as a
2-year programme by the NCTE.
13. It however so happens that on 3 rd August 2017, the Central
Government through MHRD apprised all the States and UTs that
in terms of Section 23 of the RTE Act, the in-service untrained
elementary teachers in the Government/Government Aided/
Unaided-Private Schools are required to be trained. In order to
give a statutory effect to the aforesaid letter, the Parliament carried
out an Amendment in the RTE Act. The Act No. 24 of 2017 (2017
Amendment Act), therefore, added a second proviso to sub-section
(2) of Section 23 of the RTE Act and the same was notified on 10th
August 2017 by way of a Gazette Notification.
14. It is pertinent to note that the second proviso to sub-section (2) of
Section 23 of the RTE Act provides that every teacher appointed or
in position as on 31st March 2015, who does not possess minimum
qualifications shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period
of 4 years from the date of commencement of the 2017 Amendment
Act. Accordingly, the date of commencement of the 2017 Amendment
Act being 1st April 2015, the in-service untrained elementary teachers
had to acquire the minimum qualifications by 31st March 2019. It can
thus be seen that close to around 18-19 months were only remaining
for such of the in-service untrained elementary teachers to acquire
the minimum qualifications.
15. The NCTE, thereafter, on 22nd September 2017 passed a Recognition
Order. It is relevant to note that the NCTE only after considering the
recommendation of an Expert Committee sought to grant relaxation
to certain provisions of the 2014 NCTE Regulations so as to ensure
compliance with Section 23 of the RTE as it stood amended on
10th August 2017. The NCTE, therefore, reduced the duration of
the D. El. Ed. through ODL System as recognized in Appendix 9 of
the 2014 NCTE Regulations. The duration of the D. El. Ed. (ODL)
programme was reduced to 18 months instead of 2 years by
including/subsuming the 6 months internship within the 18 months.
The NCTE also granted recognition/approval to NIOS for conducting
the 18 months D. El. Ed. (ODL) programme through SWAYAM Portal
of the MHRD for training of such of in-service untrained elementary
teachers by 31st March 2019.
704 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
16. It appears that the appellants availed of the opportunity to complete
their 18 months D. El. Ed. programme through NIOS in terms of
the Recognition Order dated 22nd September 2017 passed by the
NCTE.
17. The present lis, however, started with the issuance of a notification
dated 29th September 2022 by the WBBPE for the recruitment of
qualified trained candidates to the posts of Assistant Teachers in
Government Aided/Government Sponsored/Junior Basic Primary
Schools. On 6th July 2023, a Writ Petition came to be filed before
the Calcutta High Court with a prayer that the High Court direct the
respondent-authorities to give preference to such of the candidates
who have completed their D. El. Ed. programme over a period of
2 years from recognized institutions over those candidates who
have obtained their D. El. Ed. through the 18 months programme
by NIOS. It was further their prayer that the High Court direct the
respondent-authorities to not only restrict the 18 months NIOS trained
candidates but also to declare that the 18 months programme by
NIOS is not at all identical to the 2 years D. El. Ed. programme from
a recognized institution.
18. During the pendency of the aforesaid Writ Petition before the High
Court, this Court delivered the judgment in the case of Jaiveer Singh.
19. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, therefore, disposed
of the Writ Petition on 29th February 2024 with a direction to the
WBBPE to not recruit any teachers holding D. El. Ed. issued
by NIOS under ODL mode i.e., the 18 months course from the
recruitment process of the year 2022 onwards. The intra-court appeal
filed thereagainst came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of the
High Court by way of the impugned judgment and order dated 24th
July 2024. It is pertinent to note that the learned Single Judge of
the High Court so also the Division Bench of the High Court placed
reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Jaiveer Singh.
Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal came to be filed by way of
a special leave.
20. It is, therefore, clear that to ascertain the validity of the impugned
judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
it is imperative that we carefully consider the judgment of this Court
in the case of Jaiveer Singh.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 705
Kousik Das & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
21. This Court in the case of Jaiveer Singh was called upon to ascertain
the correctness of the judgment and order dated 14th September
2022 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in a bunch
of Writ Petitions filed thereat. The Uttarakhand High Court had held
that the 18 months D. El. Ed. conducted through the ODL mode by
NIOS is a valid diploma for applying against the regular posts of
Assistant Teachers (Primary) in the State of Uttarakhand.
22. Two sets of appeals were filed before this Court. The first by the
candidates who are holding the 2 years D. El. Ed. whereas the
second by the State of Uttarakhand.
23. It was the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the State of Uttarakhand therein that a qualification of 2 years D.
El. Ed. was specifically prescribed by the NCTE. It would, however,
be relevant to refer to the submission of the learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the candidates who are holding the 2 years
D. El. Ed., which reads thus:
“21. 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
706 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
as minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers
is concerned, it will be necessary to possess a 2 years
Diploma in Elementary Education.”
(emphasis supplied)
24. It can thus be seen that the learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the candidates who are holding the 2 years D. El. Ed.
specifically averred that the 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.
25. This Court, thereafter, considered Section 23 of the RTE Act, the
2017 Amendment Act, the 2014 NCTE Regulations, the letter by the
Central Government dated 3rd August 2017, the Recognition Order
dated 22nd September 2017 and observed thus:
“40. 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”
41. 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 30th 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.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 707
Kousik Das & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
42. 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:
“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.”
708 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
43. 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 10th 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.
44. 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.”
(emphasis supplied)
26. It can thus be seen that this Court observed that since the time gap
between the directions issued by Central Government (MHRD) and
31st March 2019 was only about 18 months, the period of the course
was reduced from 2 years to 18 months. It can further be seen that
this Court recorded that around 12,91,880 in-service elementary
teachers had registered and made payment on the NIOS portal
as on the 30th September 2017. Not only that but this Court also
observed that the NCTE Recognition Order dated 22nd September
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 709
Kousik Das & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
2017 was only for those untrained in-service teachers in Government/
Government Aided/Unaided Private Schools, who were appointed
on or before 10th August 2017. Pertinently this Court observed 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.
27. It can thus be seen that this Court specifically observed that the
NCTE Recognition Order dated 22nd September 2019 was issued so
as to provide a one-time window to the teachers who were already
working as on 10th August 2017 and who were required to acquire
the minimum qualifications prior to 1st April 2019. However, the Court
clarified that the said Recognition Order did not act as a direction to
the State of Uttarakhand to act in contravention of its 2012 Service
Rules and the advertisement issued on the basis of such Service
Rules. In that light therefore this Court came to a finding that the
decision of the Uttarakhand High Court to hold the 18 months D.
El. Ed. (ODL) through NIOS as equivalent to the 2 years D. El. Ed.
(Appendix 2 of 2014 NCTE Regulations) or 2 years D. El. Ed. through
ODL (Appendix 9 of the 2014 NCTE Regulations) was erroneous.
28. It is clear that only such of the teachers who were in-service as on
10th August 2017 but who had not acquired the minimum qualifications
till then could have availed of the one-time scheme as sanctioned
by the NCTE Recognition Order dated 22nd September 2019. Having
availed of the one-time scheme, such of the teachers even though
they only undertook the 18 months D. El. Ed. programme through
NIOS they should be considered at par with a 2 years D. El. Ed.,
if they completed their 18 months programme through NIOS prior
to 1st April 2019. Any other candidate who was not in-service as
on 10th August 2017 cannot be considered to be at par with the 2
years D. El. Ed.
29. This Court in paragraph 56 of the aforesaid case crystallised the
aforesaid position as follows:
“56. 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
710 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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.”
30. Perusal of the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge
of the High Court would show that the learned Judge referred to
paragraphs 44, 45, 56 and 57 of the judgment of this Court in the
case of Jaiveer Singh. Further, the learned Judge observed that
the D. El. Ed. offered by NIOS having a course period of 18 months
under the ODL Mode is not recognized as a valid training qualification
for recruitment to the post of Primary Teachers in India. Ultimately,
the learned Judge directed the WBBPE to not recruit any teachers
holding D. El. Ed. issued by NIOS under ODL Mode, comprising of
18 months course, from the recruitment process of 2022 onwards.
31. On an intra-court appeal by some of the appellants, the Division
Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal.
32. It can therefore be seen that even though the learned Single Judge
of the High Court placed reliance on paragraph 56 of the judgment
of this Court in the case of Jaiveer Singh it came to the wrong
conclusion inasmuch as it put a blanket ban on all teachers holding
an 18 months D. El. Ed. through NIOS.
33. As observed hereinbefore, it is clear that the judgment of this Court
in the case of Jaiveer Singh unequivocally held that the entire
scheme emanating from the NCTE Recognition Order dated 22nd
September 2017 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 would not have
continued to remain in service and would have faced dismissal from
service. As such, any teacher who was in-service as on 10th August
2017 and who acquired the qualification of D. El. Ed. by way of the
18 months programme through NIOS prior to 1st April 2019 is a valid
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 711
Kousik Das & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
diploma holder and at par with any other teacher who has completed
the 2 years D. El. Ed. programme.
34. On this ground itself, we are of the considered view that the Division
Bench of the High Court erred in not interfering with the judgment
and order of the learned Single Judge.
35. We, however, also have the benefit of the order dated 10th December
2024 passed by this Court. The same was not available to the Division
Bench at the time of passing of the impugned judgement and order.
36. By an order dated 10th December 2024 this Court, disposed of a
batch of Review Petitions and Miscellaneous Applications filed in
connection with the judgment of this Court in the case of Jaiveer
Singh. It would be relevant to refer to the order dated 10th December
2024 in full, which is as follows:
“1. The grievance sought to be raised on behalf of the
review petitioners and some of the applicants before this
Court is that though they were in employment and covered
by the recognition order dated 22.09.2017, they believe
that the judgment and order of this Court dated 28.11.2023
(hereinafter `judgment under review’) would come in their
way if they want to make better their prospects by applying
either in other institutions or for promotional avenues.
2. We have already clarified in the judgment under
review that the one-time scheme was provided solely
to safeguard the interests of those teachers who were
employed as on 10.08.2017. We are, therefore, not
inclined to entertain the present review petitions as
well as miscellaneous applications.
3. However, to avoid any confusion, we again clarify
that the 18 months diploma obtained by such
persons, who were in employment as on 10.08.2017
and who have completed the diploma course of 18
months, would be treated as valid diploma holders
for the purpose of applying in other institutions or
for promotional avenues.
4. Needless to state that the clarification will be
effective from the date of pronouncement of the
judgment under review.
712 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
5. With the aforesaid clarification, the review petition(s)
as well as all miscellaneous applications, including all the
pending applications, are disposed of.”
(emphasis supplied)
37. It can thus be seen that this Court observed that it had already
clarified in the judgment of Jaiveer Singh that the one-time scheme
was provided solely to safeguard the interests of those teachers
who were employed as on 10th August 2017. It can further be seen
that to avoid any confusion, this Court in the review petition again
clarified that such of the teachers who acquired the 18 months D. El.
Ed. through NIOS and who were in employment as on 10th August
2017 would be treated as a valid diploma holder for the purpose
of applying in other institutions or for promotional avenues. It was
further made clear that the clarification issued by this Court on 10th
December 2024 would be effective from the date of pronouncement
of the judgment of this Court in the case of Jaiveer Singh i.e.,
28th November 2023.
38. Not only that but this Court on 5th March 2025 by a judgment in IA No.
37419 of 2025 in T.P. (C) No. 42-43 of 2025 titled as “Viswanath
vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors.” faced with a similar fact
situation, once again held that such of the teachers who were
in employment as on 10th August 2017 and who had undertaken
the 18 months D. El. Ed. through NIOS would be treated as valid
diploma holders for the purposes of applying to other institutions or
for promotional avenues.
39. It is, therefore, clear that in light of the judgment of this Court in the
case of Jaiveer Singh so also the order dated 10th December 2024
in the case of Viswanath, the impugned judgment and order of the
High Court is not sustainable.
40. We, therefore, pass the following order:
i. The appeal is allowed;
ii. The judgment and order dated 29th February 2024 passed by
the learned Single Judge of the High Court is quashed and
set aside;
iii. The judgment and order dated 24th July 2024 passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court is quashed and set aside;
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 713
Kousik Das & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
iv. The Writ Petition being W.P.A. No. 16118 of 2023 is dismissed.
v. We clarify that such of the teachers who were in employment
as on 10th August 2017 and who completed the 18 months D.
El. Ed. (ODL) programme through NIOS before 1st April 2019
shall be considered as valid diploma holders for the purpose
of applying in other institutions and/or for promotional avenues.
vi. We direct the respondent-authorities to consider the candidature
of such of the appellants who were in-service as on 10th August
2017 and that who, on verification, are found to satisfy the
eligibility criteria shall be appointed within a period of three
months from today.
41. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of in the above
terms.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Recruitment"Sign in to search