NAVIN KUMAR & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

           [2024] 8 S.C.R. 810 : 2024 INSC 656

                   Navin Kumar & Ors.
                             v.
                 Union of India & Ors. Etc.
  (Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 20768-20770 of 2024)
                          28 August 2024
     [Sudhanshu Dhulia and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.]

                     Issue for Consideration

Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the
High Court which quashed the appointment of the primary school
teachers with B.Ed qualification.

                            Headnotes†

Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 –
Appointment to the post of Assistant teacher in a Primary
School – Eligibility of B.Ed candidates – On facts, issuance
of appointment orders in favour of the B.Ed candidates by the
State of Chhattisgarh, which was after the judgment in Devesh
Sharma’s case wherein it was held that the candidates having
B.Ed qualification were ineligible for the appointment and as
such cannot be given any relief – Petitions filed by candidates
holding Diploma in Elementary Education, challenging the
eligibility of B.Ed. candidates – Interim order by the High
Court whereby the recruitment process as regards B.Ed.
candidates was directed to be kept in abeyance – Challenge to,
by the B.Ed. candidates before Supreme Court – Clarificatory
order by this Court that selection and appointment of B.Ed.
candidates would be subject to the final decision of the High
Court – Thereafter, petitions filed by the Diploma holders in
Elementary Education before the High Court were allowed
and service of teachers with B.Ed. Qualification terminated –
Interference with:
Held: Not called for – B.Ed. qualified candidates were called by
the State in the selection process, yet as they were held to be non-
qualified by a judgment of this Court in Devesh Sharma’s case,
which is the law now and by logic has to be implemented, they
were rightly held to be disqualified – B.Ed. is not a qualification for
a teacher in a Primary School – Moreover, this aspect has already
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                            811

            Navin Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Etc.


     been clarified in the order dated 08.04.2024, where only such
     candidates have been saved who were selected and appointed
     prior to the order dated 11.08.2023 in Devesh Sharma’s Case –
     Since the instant petitioners were appointed post 11.08.2023 and
     their appointments were also subjected to the final outcome of
     the pending writ petition before High Court, they cannot get any
     benefit – Date of appointment which is certainly after the cut-
     off date, is important – They will stand disqualified, as they do
     not have the essential qualification for appointment as primary
     school teachers – Furthermore, r. 8(II) of the 2019 Rules placing
     B.Ed. as a qualification is again subsequent to the Notification
     of NCTE, which has already been quashed and set aside by
     the judgment in Devesh Sharma’s case – Thus, by implication,
     qualification given in the Chhattisgarh Rules to the extent it makes
     B.Ed. a qualification also cannot be implemented, following the law
     laid down in Devesh Sharma’s case – Also, order of NCTE whereby
     the judgment in Devesh Sharma’s case was communicated to
     Chief Secretaries of all State Governments for further appropriate
     action has been shown to the Court – In spite of this, appointments
     were given to B.Ed. candidates which was illegal and has rightly
     been quashed by the High Court – Chhattisgarh School Education
     Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and
     Promotion Rules, 2019. [Paras 10-13]

                              Case Law Cited
     Devesh Sharma v. Union of India [2023] 11 SCR 167 : 2023 INSC
     704 – relied on.

                                List of Acts
     Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009; Chhattisgarh
     School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre)
     Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019.

                             List of Keywords
     Post of Assistant teacher in Primary School; Eligibility of B.Ed
     candidates; Diploma in Elementary Education; Recruitment
     process; Devesh Sharma’s Case.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition(C) Nos.
     20768-20770 of 2024
812                                                         [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


       From the Judgment and Order dated 02.04.2024 of the High Court of
       Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in WPS No. 3541, 5788 and 7344 of 2023
       With
       Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 10295, 20777-20779, 20776, 13756,
       20811 and 20812 of 2024
                                Appearances for Parties
       K.M. Natraj, A.S.G., Apoorv Kurup, A.A.G., Amit Anand Tiwari,
       Sanjay Hegde, Ravindra Shrivastava, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Ranjit
       Kumar, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, U.K. Uniyal,
       Sr. Advs., Arjun D Singh, Ms. Ankita Sharma, Arjun Garg, Aakash
       Nandolia, Ms. Kriti Gupta, Shashank Shekhar Jha, Ms. Priyanka
       Thakur, Subhash Chandra Jha, Archit Kaushik, Vishhal Saxxenaa,
       Pramod Kumar Tripathy, Ms. Erika Yagnik, Diva Kant, Anil Kumar,
       Abhijeet Shrivastava, Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Anshuman Shrivastava,
       Abhishek Sharma, Aniket Singh Das, Ms. Devangna Singh, Ms.
       Sanya Shukla, Ms. Krati Dubey, Ieeshan Sharma, Ms. Rhea Rao,
       Ms. Selina Raj Mevati, P S Patwalia, Amit Pawan, Hassan Zubair
       Waris, Suchit Rawat, Abhishek Amritanshu, Ms. Aastha Shreshta,
       Ms. Aastha Sherstha, Mandeep Kalra, Ms. Anushna Satapathy,
       Ms. Chitrangada Singh, Yashas J, Vishal Sinha, Chandratanay
       Chaube, Rishi K Awasthi, Piyush Vatsa, Rahul Kumar Gupta, Punit
       Vinay, Rahul Raj Mishra, Avinash Ankit, Manoj Kumar, D.K. Garg,
       Abhishek Garg, Dhananjay Garg, Akshat Srivastava, Advs. for the
       appearing parties.
                     Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                           Order
1.     In Devesh Sharma v. Union of India1 (delivered on 11.08.2023),
       there was before us a challenge to the judgement of the Rajasthan
       High Court dated 25.11.2021 where it was held that for appointment
       of primary school teachers (i.e., teachers of Class I to Class V),
       the essential qualification is D.El.Ed. (i.e., Diploma in Elementary
       Education) and not B.Ed. (i.e., Bachelor in Education), and B.Ed.
       qualified candidates were held to be disqualified.



1    [2023] 11 SCR 167 : 2023 INSC 704
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                            813

            Navin Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Etc.


2.   Before the Rajasthan High Court, the National Council for Teachers
     Education (hereinafter referred to as “NCTE”) notification dated
     28.06.2018, by which B.Ed. qualified candidates were held eligible
     was, inter alia, under challenge. In our judgment dated 11.08.2023,
     we have upheld the Division Bench order of Rajasthan High Court and
     affirmed the findings that the essential qualification for appointment as
     primary school teachers is Diploma in Elementary Education and not
     B.Ed. Consequently, the NCTE notification dated 28.06.2018 and the
     regulations made therein, by which B.Ed was made a qualification,
     were quashed and set aside.
3.   The above judgment of Devesh Sharma (supra) was delivered on
     11.08.2023 and thereafter review applications, clarifications, etc.
     kept coming up, mainly from such candidates who were having
     B.Ed. qualification and were selected and appointed by different
     States in the recent selection process for primary school teachers.
     We had heard all such applicants at length and clarified that such
     B.Ed. qualified candidates who were selected and appointed prior
     to our decision in Devesh Sharma (supra) i.e. prior to 11.08.2023,
     shall not be disturbed as there was a special equity in their favour.
     Therefore, our judgement would be prospective in nature, and will
     not disturb the appointments of such candidates who had already
     been appointed prior to the judgment in Devesh Sharma (supra)
     i.e. prior to 11.08.2023. This is what was clarified in our order dated
     08.04.2024:
           As it appears that a large number of candidates with
           B.Ed. degree had already been appointed on the basis of
           eligibility criteria specified by the educational authorities,
           we do not think it to be equitable to effect their removal.
           We, accordingly hold that the judgment delivered by
           this Bench on 11th August, 2023 shall have prospective
           operation. But prospective operation of this judgment
           shall be only for those candidates who were appointed
           without any qualification or conditions imposed by any
           Court of Law to the effect that their appointment would
           be subject to final outcome of the case which might have
           had been instituted by them and such candidates were in
           regular employment without any disqualification and were
           appointed in pursuance of a notice of advertisement where
           B.Ed. was stipulated to be valid qualification. Services of
814                                                           [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


            only such candidates shall not be disturbed because of
            this judgment. We make it clear that this benefit is only
            for the candidates who were appointed prior to the date
            our judgment was delivered, on 11th August, 2023. Mere
            selection of such candidates or their participation in the
            process will not entitle them for a benefit under our present
            order.
            …
            We also make it clear that the directions contained in this
            order shall not be confined to the applicant state only and
            shall cover all cases which may be pending in different
            judicial fora in any State or Union territory on the same
            point of law.
                                                   (emphasis supplied)
       After our clarifications, on 08.04.2024, there should not have
       remained any doubts, yet clarification and review applications, kept
       coming up in one form or the other which were all dismissed. Now,
       in the present batch of petitions, the same question has again
       come up before this Court, this time arising out of a judgment of
       Chhattisgarh High Court, which has only been passed following our
       order in Devesh Sharma (supra).
4.     The High Court in its judgment dated 02.04.2024 declared all such
       candidates, having B.Ed. qualification to be ineligible and disqualified
       for selection to the post of primary school teachers, following the
       decision of this Court in Devesh Sharma (supra).
5.     Admittedly in the present case, the appointment orders in favour of
       the B.Ed candidates were issued in September 2023 by the State
       of Chhattisgarh, that is after the date of our judgement in Devesh
       Sharma (supra) which was delivered on 11.08.2023. We have
       already held in our order dated 08.04.2024 that such candidates
       cannot be given any relief.
6.     Before the Chhattisgarh High Court, petitions were filed by
       candidates holding Diploma in Elementary Education, challenging
       the eligibility of B.Ed. candidates on the grounds that they were
       not entitled to be appointed as primary school teachers. In their
       defence the B.Ed. candidates had argued that B.Ed. is one of the
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                          815

            Navin Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Etc.


     qualifications for appointment of elementary school teachers under
     the applicable Rules i.e., Chhattisgarh School Education Services
     (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion
     Rules, 2019 (“2019 Rules”), and thus, they have the necessary
     qualification.
7.   All the same, apprised of the order of this Court in Devesh Sharma
     (supra), the Division Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court had passed
     an interim order on 21.08.2023 whereby the recruitment process
     was directed to be kept in abeyance as regards B.Ed. candidates.
     This is what was said:
           Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel
           for the parties and also considering the law laid down by
           the Apex Court on the issue in question passed in Civil
           Appeal No. 5068 of 2023 (Devesh Sharma Vs. Union
           of India & Others decided on 11.08.2023), the further
           recruitment process with regard to the candidates having
           B.Ed. qualification for the post of Assistant Teachers shall
           be kept in abeyance with immediate effect and further no
           final decision would be taken by the respondents in respect
           of such candidates till the next date of hearing.
8.   This interim order of High Court was then challenged by B.Ed.
     candidates before this Court, where a Division Bench of this Court
     passed the following order dated 29.08.2023:
           In the meantime, taking into consideration that the
           recruitment process which was in progress, is now
           interrupted by the ad-interim order dated 21.08.2023 and
           the aspect ultimately to be considered by the High Court
           is with regard to the manner in which the judgment in C.A.
           No. 5068 of 2023 passed by this Court is to be construed,
           at this stage interrupting the recruitment process would
           not be justified.
           Therefore, to the said extent, we hereby stay the order
           dated 21.08.2023 passed by the High Court and clarify
           that the recruitment process, which was in progress prior
           to the date of the said interim order passed by the High
           Court, shall continue and the appointments, if any, made
           thereunder will however remain subject to result of the
816                                                            [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


            consideration to be made by the High Court in W.P.S No.
            5788 of 2023. The selected candidates shall be informed
            of the same by the Appointing Authority concerned.
                                                    (emphasis supplied)
9.     The above order of this Court has clarified that the selection and
       appointment of B.Ed. candidates would be subject to the final decision
       of the High Court in the writ petition. Later, when they were given
       appointments, their Appointment Order also clearly states that this
       appointment is subject to the decision of Chhattisgarh High Court in
       the pending writ petition. Ultimately, the petitions filed by the Diploma
       holders (in Elementary Education) were allowed vide the impugned
       judgement and the logical consequence of this is that the service of
       teachers, with B.Ed. qualification, are liable to be terminated. In the
       present batch of petitions, we have before us these teachers with
       B.Ed. qualification whose appointments have been quashed. The
       State of Chhattisgarh is also before us challenging the impugned
       judgement and order dated 02.04.2024 of the High Court.
10. One of the arguments of the learned senior counsel (Mr. Shrivastava)
    for the petitioners before this Court is that this Court in Devesh
    Sharma (supra) had opened a small window for B.Ed. candidates
    who were called for selection as B.Ed. was one of the qualifications
    in the 2019 Rules as also in the notification of NCTE and till it was
    set aside such candidates cannot be called as ineligible. All we had
    said in Devesh Sharma (supra) was that since the law, making
    B.Ed. as qualification, was not struck down by any Court (as was
    the position in Rajasthan when recruitment to the post of teachers
    were taking place in 2019) such candidates ought to have been
    called at least. This is exactly what was said:
            “Having made the above determination we, all the same,
            are also of the considered opinion that the State of
            Rajasthan was clearly in error in not calling for applications
            from B.Ed. qualified candidates, for the reasons that till
            that time when such an advertisement was issued by the
            Rajasthan Government, B.Ed. candidates were included
            as eligible candidates as per the statutory notification of
            NCTE, which was binding on the Rajasthan Government,
            till it was declared illegal or unconstitutional by the Court.”
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                           817

            Navin Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Etc.


     As we know when recruitment to the post of teachers was being
     made in Rajasthan, B.Ed. was a qualification for teachers as per the
     NCTE notification. The above observation made by us was only to
     affirm the findings of the Rajasthan High Court which had although
     held that B.Ed. was not a valid “qualification” for primary teachers,
     yet cautioned that the Government could not have ignored the
     notification of the NCTE till it was declared illegal by a Competent
     Court. That was all. In Chhattisgarh, this was not the case. B.Ed.
     qualified candidates were called by the State in the selection process,
     yet as they were held to be non-qualified by a judgment of this
     Court, which is the law now and by logic has to be implemented,
     they were rightly held to be disqualified. How does our observations
     in Devesh Sharma (supra) help the petitioners, we simply fail to
     understand. This argument is totally misconceived. B.Ed. is not a
     qualification for a teacher in a Primary School. Moreover, this aspect
     has already been clarified in the order dated 08.04.2024, where
     only such candidates have been saved who were selected and
     appointed prior to our order dated 11.08.2023 in Devesh Sharma
     (supra). Since the petitioners in the present case were appointed
     post 11.08.2023 and their appointments were also subjected to the
     final outcome of the pending writ petition before High Court, they
     cannot get any benefit. The completion of the selection process
     prior to 11.08.2023 is not material. What is important is the date
     of appointment which is certainly after the cut-off date. They will
     stand disqualified, as they do not have the essential qualification
     for appointment as primary school teachers.
11. We have also gone through the 2019 Rules of Chhattisgarh. In Rule
    8 (II), the qualification of an Assistant Teacher reads as under: -
           “Rule 8 (II): Educational qualifications and experience –
           The candidate must possess the educational qualifications
           and experience as prescribed for the service as shown in
           column (5) of Schedule III. For Preliminary education, the
           prescribed qualification will be applicable as per provisions
           of the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.”
     Column 5 of Schedule III provides that the minimum educational
     qualifications required for the post of teachers shall be as per Annexure
     I of the Rules. This Annexure prescribes the minimum qualification
     for Assistant Teacher as follows:
818                                                         [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


            “a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50%
            marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education by
            whatever name known)
                                        OR
            Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45%
            marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by
            whatever name known) in accordance with the NCTE
            (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2002
                                        OR
            Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50%
            marks and 4-year Bachelor of Elementary Education
            (B.EL.Ed.)
                                        OR
            Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50%
            marks and 2-year Diploma in Education (Special Education)
                                        OR
            Graduation and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education
            (by whatever name known)
                                        OR
            Graduation with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. qualification
            (graduate from the institution recognised from NCTE) shall
            also be eligible for appointment as teacher for classes 1 to
            5. Provided he / she undergoes, after appointment, a NCTE
            recognised 6-month special programme in Elementary
            Education.
                                       And
            (b) Passed the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be
            conducted by the appropriate Government, in accordance
            with the guidelines framed by NCTE for this purpose.”
                                                  (emphasis supplied)
       The entire reliance of the petitioner is on the above provisions. We
       have already seen that Rule 8(II) while prescribing the qualifications
       of Assistant Teacher makes a reference to the qualifications as given
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                     819

               Navin Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Etc.


     under the Right to Education Act, 2009. Not only this, the aforesaid
     provision placing B.Ed. as a qualification is again subsequent to
     the Notification of NCTE dated 28.06.2018, which has already been
     quashed and set aside by our judgement in Devesh Sharma (supra).
     Therefore, by implication, qualification given in the Chhattisgarh
     Rules to the extent it makes B.Ed. a qualification also cannot be
     implemented, following the law laid down in Devesh Sharma (supra).
12. In fact, we have been shown today an order of NCTE dated
    04.09.2023 whereby the judgement in Devesh Sharma (supra)
    was communicated to Chief Secretaries of all State Governments
    for further appropriate action. In spite of this, appointments were
    given to B.Ed. candidates which was illegal and has now rightly
    been quashed, by the Chhattisgarh High Court.
13. In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned
    judgement passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court.
14. Accordingly, all the Special Leave Petitions are hereby dismissed.
     Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Special Leave Petitions dismissed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain