Holding

Rule 6(2) of the Recruitment Rules does not fix a cut‑off date for qualifications; eligibility is to be determined with reference to the recruitment advertisement date or, if absent, the last date for receipt of applications.

Summary

The case concerned the recruitment of assistant teachers in West Bengal primary schools, where the eligibility rule required a Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) as prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). Because the COVID‑19 pandemic delayed the 2020‑22 D.El.Ed. batch, several candidates feared they would miss the recruitment deadline and filed writ petitions seeking relief. The Calcutta High Court Single Judge allowed them to apply, but the Division Bench later held them ineligible, interpreting Rule 6(2) of the 2016 Recruitment Rules as imposing a cut‑off date of 29 September 2022 for possessing the qualification. The Supreme Court held that Rule 6(2) does not prescribe a fixed cut‑off date; eligibility must be judged with reference to the date of the recruitment advertisement or, absent that, the last date for receipt of applications. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench decision, upheld the validity of the recruitment notification dated 21 October 2022, and ordered the process to continue. The appeals were allowed.

Issues considered

The interpretation of Rule 6(2) of the West Bengal School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016 – whether it prescribes a specific cut‑off date for possessing minimum qualifications.
Whether candidates who obtained the required D.El.Ed. qualification after the date of the recruitment advertisement can be considered eligible.
The appropriate date for assessing eligibility under recruitment rules and notifications.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 142
National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993s. Section 32
National Council for Teachers Education Act, 2009
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009s. Section 23
West Bengal School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016

Headnote

Issue for Consideration The issue involved relates to the appointments to the post of assistant teachers in primary schools in the State of West Bengal. Headnotes† West Bengal School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016 – r.6(2) as amended on 22.12.2020 – Interpretation – Late in Elementary Education examination (D.El.Ed.), the minimum qualification for post of Primary Teacher, delaying the normal conclusion of the 2022 batch by 30.06.2022 – Appellants apprehending that they could cross the age bar if they did not participate in the upcoming recruitment

Subjects

Rule 6(2) of the West Bengal School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016National Council for Teachers Education Act, 2009NCTEAssistant teachers in primary schoolsMinimum qualificationsDiploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.)COVID-19 outbreakCut‑off date for qualificationRecruitment notificationArticle 142 of the Constitution of IndiaPublic employmentEligibility of participants

Judgment

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 651 : 2025 INSC 451

Soumen Paul & Ors.
v.
Shrabani Nayek & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 4977 of 2025)
04 April 2025
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Manoj Misra, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
The issue involved relates to the appointments to the post of
assistant teachers in primary schools in the State of West Bengal.

Headnotes†
West Bengal School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016 – r.6(2)
as amended on 22.12.2020 – Interpretation – Late conduct
of the 2020-22 Batch of Diploma in Elementary Education
examination (D.El.Ed.), the minimum qualification for post
of Primary Teacher, delaying the normal conclusion of the
2022 batch by 30.06.2022 – Appellants apprehending that
they could cross the age bar if they did not participate in the
upcoming recruitment process, filed writ petitions – Single
Judge of the High Court permitted the appellants to participate
in the recruitment process – However, the appellants were
held ineligible by the Division Bench to participate in the
selection process on the ground that they did not possess
the eligibility qualifications on the date of the advertisement,
i.e., 29.09.2022 – Challenge to:
Held: r.6(2) does not prescribe a date by which minimum
qualifications must be possessed – High Court erred in interpreting
and construing r.6(2) as a provision prescribing a cut-off date
by which time the minimum educational qualifications must be
possessed – The direction of the Single Judge enabled candidates
such as the appellant who were at the verge of completing the
course to participate in the selection process and they would have
been appointed only upon attaining the prescribed qualifications –
Recruitment advertisement dtd. 21.10.2022, issued in continuation
of the previous notification dtd.29.09.2022 itself invited applications
from TET qualified candidates including the candidates appearing

* Author
652 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

for the session 2020 in D.El.Ed. Courses in compliance with the
order of the High Court – The qualifications must be possessed
in terms of the date appointed by the relevant service rules and
if there is no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date
as may be appointed for the purpose of advertisement calling for
applications – Further, if there is no such date appointed then
eligibility criteria shall be with reference to the last date appointed
by which the applications have to be received – Appellants who
applied as per the recruitment notification dtd.21.10.2022 obtained
their course completion certificates by 29.11.2022 and their final
results were declared on 30.12.2022 – Interviews commenced
in December 2022 and when the process was to be taken to its
logical end, the division bench passed the impugned order by
interpreting r.6(2) as if it prescribes a cut-off date for eligibility – The
recruitment notification dtd.21.10.2022 indicated that the appellants
will be given an opportunity and that intendment must inure to
their benefit – Recruitment notification dtd.21.10.2022 is legal and
valid – The recruitment process commenced under the relevant
rules and also as per the directions of the Single Judge of the High
Court – Judgment of the division bench set aside – Recruitment
process which commenced in the notification dated 21.10.2022
to proceed further – National Council for Teachers Education Act,
2009 – Constitution of India – Article 142. [Paras 21, 28-33]
Service Law – Recruitment/Selection – Cut-off date for
qualification – Law as regards the date by which candidates for
selection must possess the minimum qualifications prescribed
for recruitment – Discussed.
Service Law – Recruitment notification – Importance of –
Discussed.

Case Law Cited
Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court [2024] 12 SCR 28 :
(2025) 2 SCC 1 – followed.
Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 262; Rakesh
Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2013] 8 SCR 486 : (2013)
11 SCC 58 – referred to.

List of Acts
West Bengal School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016; National
Council for Teachers Education Act, 2009; Constitution of India.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 653

Soumen Paul & Ors. v. Shrabani Nayek & Ors.

List of Keywords
Rule 6(2) of the West Bengal School Teachers Recruitment
Rules, 2016; National Council for Teachers Education Act, 2009;
NCTE; Post of assistant teachers in primary schools; Minimum
qualifications; Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.);
COVID-19 outbreak; West Bengal Board of Primary Education;
Cut-off date for qualification; Date by which candidates for
selection must possess the minimum qualifications prescribed for
recruitment; Recruitment notification; Article 142 of the Constitution
of India; Recruitment process; Public employment; Eligibility of
participants.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4977 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.04.2023 of the High Court
at Calcutta in MAT No. 1725 of 2022
With
Civil Appeal No. 4978 and 4979 of 2025

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Rauf Rahim, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advs.,
Dibyendu Chatterjee, Ali Asghar Rahim, Shekhar Kumar, Soham
Datta, Dibyendu Chatterjee, Ms. Rashmi Ghosh, Aranya Moulick,
Namya Rishi, Nishant Singh, Dibyendu Chatterjee, Ms. Rashmi
Ghosh, Aranya Moulick, Namya Rishi, Nishant Singh.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Subir Sanyal, Biswajit Deb, Jaideep
Gupta, Ms. Manisha T Karia, Sr. Advs. Gaurav Jain, Ms. Abha
Jain, Somesh Ghosh, Chhittapriya Ghosh, Mandeep Kalra,
Chitrangada Singh, Radhika Jalan, Madhav Gupta, Vishal Sinha,
Anando Mukherjee, Shwetank Singh, Kunal Chatterji, Ms. Maitrayee
Banerjee, Rohit Bansal, Ms. Shalini Chandra, Ms. Shreya Gupta,
Ms. Ananya Arora, Deepin Deepak Sahni, Devendra Kumar Shukla,
Pranav Sachdeva, Dibyadyuti Banerjee, Mrs. Sumedha Halder,
Abhijit Sengupta, Paras Chauhan, Navneet Kansal, Amar Nath
Singh, Navneet Singh.
654 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.

1. Leave Granted.
2. The issue involved in this case relates to the appointments to the post
of assistant teachers in primary schools in the State of West Bengal.
This post is governed by the West Bengal Primary School Teachers
Recruitment Rules, 2016,1 and the qualifications for appointment to
the said post are prescribed in Rule 6 which is extracted below for
ready reference:
“6. Qualifications.— (1) No person shall be appointed by
the Council as a teacher unless he is a citizen of India
and has completed the age of 18 years as on 1st day of
January of the year of advertisement and has not completed
the age of 40 years on the 1st day of January of the year
of advertisement as specified in sub-rule (3).
(2) The candidate shall possess the minimum educational
qualifications specified by the National Council for Teacher
Education and the notification relating to eligibility of
candidates issued by the Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Department of School Education and
Literacy, Government of India (hereafter referred to
as MHRD), from time to time, read with the relaxed
qualifications issued by that Ministry from time to time
and passed the TET.
(3) In the matter of appointment, priority shall be given
to those eligible candidates who possess the minimum
qualifications as specified by the National Council for
Teacher Education and MHRD and thereafter, the eligible
candidates with the relaxed qualification specified by the
MHRD, may be considered and if candidates with relaxed
qualifications are considered as teachers, such teachers

1 Framed under the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 655

Soumen Paul & Ors. v. Shrabani Nayek & Ors.

under the relaxed qualification norms shall be appointed
with an undertaking to acquire the minimum qualifications
specified in the National Council for Teacher Education
within a period of 2 years from the date of appointment.”
3. In this case, we are concerned with sub-rule (2) of Rule 6. This
sub-rule was later amended by a notification dated 22.12.2020 in
the following terms:
“(2) The candidate shall possess the minimum educational
and training qualification as prescribed by the National
Council for Teacher Education prevailing as on date of
publication of recruitment notification.”
4. As is evident from the above, the minimum qualifications specified in
Rule 6 of Recruitment Rules, 2016 will be those that are prescribed
by the National Council for Teachers Education,2 a body constituted
under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993.3 In
exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of section 23
of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
2009, by notification dated 23.08.20104 the NCTE laid down the
minimum qualification for a person to be appointed as a teacher
for class I to class VIII. The qualifications were amended from
time to time, and the qualifications that were prevailing at the
time when the recruitment notification for appointment of assistant
teachers (primary) in the State of West Bengal was issued, were
those prescribed by NCTE in its notification dated 29.07.2011.5 The
relevant portion of the said prescription is extracted hereinbelow
for ready reference:
“1. Minimum Qualifications:-
(i) Classes I-V
a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50%
marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by
whatever name known)

2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘NCTE’/‘council’.
3 Hereinafter referred to as the “NCTE Act”.
4 F. No. 61-03/20/2010/NCTE(N&S).
5 F. No. 61-1/2011/NCTE(N&S).
656 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 two year Diploma in Elementary Education
(by whatever name known).
AND
b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted
by the appropriate Government in accordance with the
Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.”
5. It is in the above-referred legal regime governing appointments to
the post of assistant teachers that the appellants’ aspiration and
endeavour to join the post advertised on 21.10.20226 comes up for
our consideration. The relevant factual background is as follows.
6. As the mandatory minimum qualification for the post of Primary
Teacher in the state is a Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.),
a two-year course conducted by the West Bengal Board of Primary
Education,7 constituted under the West Bengal Primary Education
Act, 1973, the appellants enrolled themselves for the 2020-2022
batch of D.El.Ed. It has always been the practice that a new batch
would commence from the 01st July of a year and conclude by the
second successive year, which in the present case would have been
30th June 2022.

6 There is an issue as to whether this is the notification by which the posts were advertised or it is the
notification dated 29.09.2022, about which we will shortly be clarifying.
7 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 657

Soumen Paul & Ors. v. Shrabani Nayek & Ors.

7. The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and problems with the
constitution and functioning of the Board delayed the 2020-2022
batch, leading to a situation where the normal and natural conclusion
of the 2022 batch by 30th June seemed uncertain.
8. The appellants were concerned that they may lose the opportunity
to apply and participate in the recruitment process that was to
commence with the issuance of a notification in October 2022. With
this apprehension and anxiety about the fact that many of them
could cross the age bar if they did not participate in the upcoming
recruitment process, they approached the Calcutta High Court by
filing writ petition(s) under Article 226, in which they prayed as
under:
“a. Leave dispensing with Rule 26 of the Rules of High
Court Calcutta relating to Applications under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
b. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the
respondents and each one of them particularly the
respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 to immediately complete the
D.El.Ed. course within the stipulated time.
c. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding
the respondents authorities and each one of them to
immediately complete the Part-I Examination and declare
the results.
d. A Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents authorities to immediately start Part- II
Examination and declare results of Part II Examination and
further provide the Petitioners with D.EL.Ed. Certificates.
e. A Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the
Respondents authorities and each one of them particularly
the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 to issue Petitioners with
the TET-2014 Pass Certificates.
f. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the
Respondents authorities and each one of them particularly
the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 not to initiate any selection
process till such time the petitioners get their D.El.Ed. final
results and certificates of 2020-2022 batch.
658 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

g. A writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents,
to certify and transmit the entire records relating to the
case so that conscionable justice may be administered
to petitioners.
h. Rule NISI in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f)
and (g).
i. An order directing the respondents authorities, particularly
the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 not to start any selection
Process till such time the results and D.El.Ed. certificates
of 2020-2022 batch and TET 2014 certificates are given
to the petitioners.
j. An order directing the respondents authorities particularly
the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 to issue them TET 2014
Pass Certificates.
k. Ad-interim order in terms of prayer (i) and (j).”
(emphasis supplied)

9. In the meanwhile, to obviate the ineffective functioning of the Board,
the Government constituted an ad-hoc committee, and the President
of the Board took charge on 24.08.2022. Along with the President,
the Deputy Secretary of the Board also took charge on 26.08.2022.
After taking charge, the officers took stock of the situation and
realised that the D.El.Ed. batch for the year 2020-2022 was already
delayed, and urgent action was required to be taken. It is evident
from the records that Part II session of the 2022 batch ended on
30.06.2022, and the examination for that purpose (Part I-Theoretical)
was conducted between 15.07.2022 and 18.08.2022, which was
anyway far beyond 30th June 2022, i.e., the normal conclusion for
any D.El.Ed. batch.
10. When the writ petition came up for hearing before the High Court
on 21.09.2022, the learned counsel for the Board sought time for
taking necessary instructions. When the learned single judge of the
High Court again took up the writ petition a week thereafter, i.e., on
29.09.2022, the counsel appearing on behalf of the Board, having
obtained instructions from the Government/Board, informed the Court
that the results of the appellants in D.El.Ed. would be declared that
very day, i.e., 29.09.2022, and the digital mark sheets would be sent
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 659

Soumen Paul & Ors. v. Shrabani Nayek & Ors.

to the different institutions. The High Court was also informed that
the candidates, like the appellants, who were TET qualified and who
were pursuing D.El.Ed. course for the Session 2020-22 and had
already qualified in Part-I examination will be given an opportunity
to participate in the recruitment process to be initiated by the Board
under advertisement dated 21.10.2022. In view of the statement made
on behalf of the Board and without any further consideration, the writ
petition was allowed and disposed of with the following directions:
“In this matter I am told by the learned advocate for the
West Bengal Board of Primary Education that today i.e. on
29.09.2022 the result of D.El.Ed. Part - I will be declared
and the digital marksheet will be sent to different institutes.
All the persons who were undergoing that course will get the
digital marksheet tomorrow i.e. 30.09.2022. It has further
been stated on instruction by Mr. Saikat Banerjee, learned
advocate for the West Bengal Board of Primary Education
that “TET qualified candidates who are undergoing D.El.
Ed. raining (Session 2020-2022) and qualified in D.El.
Ed. Part-I (Session 2020-2022) examination will be given
opportunity to apply in the recruitment process to be
initiated by the Board.
He has also submitted that this opportunity will be given
to all the persons who are undergoing D.El.Ed. course of
the Session 2020-2022.
Therefore, I find that the grievance of the petitioners
is redressed by this stand taken by the Board which is
beneficial to all.
Therefore, the writ application is disposed of as allowed.
The instruction given to Mr. Banerjee via e-mail by the
Secretary of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education
is kept on record.”
11. On 29.09.2022, the date on which the learned single Judge allowed
the writ petition, the Board issued a notification8 indicating that the
result of the D.El.Ed. Part-I examination held in the month of July

8 No. 233/WBBPE/D.El.Ed./2022.
660 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

for the Session 2020-22 is published, and in terms of the said
notification, the candidates were allowed to avail post-publication
review or scrutiny of their performance within the prescribed time. The
publication of the result was also intimated to the various institutions
and the students were permitted to receive the digital marksheets.
The exercise was intended to enable the appellants/candidates to
participate in the recruitment process. On the same day, i.e. on
29.09.2022, yet another notification9 was issued indicating that the
Board is going to recruit TET-qualified candidates for appointment
to the posts of assistant teachers in the vacancies that may be
indicated.
12. The intendment of these notifications is in the clarification and
declaration that candidates like the appellants who were TET
qualified and had undergone D.El.Ed. training and qualified for the
Part-I examination can participate in the recruitment process. It was
also indicated that the recruitment notification and application form
will be made available on the website with effect from 21.10.2022.
As it was contended by the respondents and accepted by the High
Court that this notification dated 29.09.2022 itself is the recruitment
notification, in order to contrast it with the subsequently issued actual
recruitment notification dated 21.10.2022, we have reproduced both
of them. Notification dated 29.09.2022 is as follows:
“NOTIFICATION
for
Recruitment of TET qualified trained candidates to the
posts of Assistant Teacher in Govt. Aided/Govt. Sponsored/
Junior Basic Primary Schools
This is to notify for all concerned that the West Bengal
Board of Primary Education is going to recruit TET
qualified trained candidates of West Bengal seeking
appointment to the posts of Assistant Teacher in Govt.
Aided / Govt. Sponsored / Junior Basic Primary Schools
against the State-wide position of vacancy to be declared
later on.

9 No.1573/WBBPE/2022 dated 29.09.2022.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 661

Soumen Paul & Ors. v. Shrabani Nayek & Ors.

The selection and appointment of the candidates shall
be made strictly in terms of West Bengal Primary School
Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016 (amended upto date).
1. Vacancy and Reservation Criteria: …
2. Scale of Pay: Basic Rs. 28,900/- plus DA as admissible
plus HRA @12% of the basic plus MA as admissible.
3. Qualification: (a) No person shall be appointed by
the concerned District Primary School Council / Primary
School Council as an Assistant Teacher unless he/she is
a citizen of India and has completed the age of 18 years
as on Ist day of January of the year of advertisement (i.e.
01.01.2022) and has not completed the age of 40 years
on the Ist day of January of the year of advertisement (i.e.
01.01.2022). Relaxation of age as per the existing rule of
the State Govt. is admissible.
(b) The candidate shall possess the minimum educational
and training qualifications as prescribed by the National
Council for Teacher Education prevailing as on date of
publication of recruitment notification.
AND
TET qualified candidates who are undergoing D.EI.Ed./D.Ed.
(Special Education)/B.Ed Training (session-2020.2022) and
who have qualified in D.El.Ed./D.Ed. (Special Education)/B.
Ed. Training Par-I examination (sossion-2020-2022) will be
given opportunity to participate In the recruitment process
to be initiated by the Board.
AND
(c) Passed in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), conducted
by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education, in
accordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE for
the purpose.
Relaxation: Candidates belonging to reserved categories
viz candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes (SC),
Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classer (OBC-A
and OBC-B), Exempted Categories (EC), Ex-Servicemen
662 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

and for Physically Handicapped (PH) candidates, shall be
allowed relaxation up to 5% in the qualifying marks.
AND
…
Interview: After prima facie scrutiny of the duly filled
application form submitted by the candidate having
NCTE prescribed qualification and fulfilling the conditions
as prescribed in West Bengal Primary School Teachers
Recruitment Rules, 2016 (amended upto date) will be
called for the Scrutiny/ Verification of the testimonials, Viva-
voce / Interview and Aptitude Test. (The eligible candidates
will be intimated of their respective venues, date and time
of their Scrutiny/ Verification of the testimonials, Viva-Voce
/ Interview and Aptitude Test in due course).
…
5. The Recruitment Notification and the Application
Form will be available in the websites: www.wbbpe.
org.https://wbbprimaryeducation.org. on or after
21.10. 2022.
6. The steps to be followed for online application (how to
apply) will be available in the aforesaid websites.”
13. Following the above referred notification, the recruitment notification
was in fact issued on 21.10.2022. The Board, in its submissions
before the division bench, contrasted the previous notification dated
29.09.2022 with the recruitment notification dated 21.10.2022 and
asserted that the latter alone is the recruitment notification. The
recruitment notification dated 21.10.2022 is reproduced for ready
reference:
“RECRUITMENT NOTIFICATION FOR VACANCY
POSITION AND LAUNCHING OF APPLICATION PORTAL
In continuation of our earlier Notification vide No. 1573/
WBBPE/2022 dtd. 29.09.2022 it is hereby notified to all
concerned that online applications for recruitment are
invited from TET qualified trained candidates including
the appearing candidates for the session 2020-2022 in
D.El.Ed./ Special D. Ed./ B. Ed. Courses in compliance
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 663

Soumen Paul & Ors. v. Shrabani Nayek & Ors.

with the order of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta, against
state-wide vacancies for appointment to the posts of
Assistant Teacher in Govt. Aided/Govt. Sponsored/Junior
Basic Primary Schools, against 11765*(eleven thousand
seven hundred sixty five) number of vacancies.
* 86 (eighty six) number of vacancies will be deducted
from the existing vacancies to comply with the order of
the Hon’ble Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay passed on
30.08.2022 in respect of WPA No. 5419 of 2022; order
passed on 26.09.2022 in respect of WPA No. 21683 of
2022; and order passed on 28.09.2022 in respect of WPA
No. 20795 of 2022.
The recruitment of the candidates will be made in
accordance with the West Bengal Primary School Teachers
Recruitment Rules, 2016 as amended upto date notified
vide No: 605-SE/EE/P)1OM-6/09/PT.VIII dated 22.12.2020.
Candidates shall apply for the posts against the State-wide
vacancies as stated above. Preference for district shall
be taken at the time of application (subject to availability
of appropriate medium & category wise vacancies).
Application Fees: Payment of online application fees of
Rs. 150/- for General candidates. Rs. 100/- for OBC-A and
OBC-B candidates and Rs. 50/- for SC, ST, PH candidates.
The application form for appointment will be available
at online portal for submission from 16:00 Hrs. (IST)
onwards of 21.10.2022 till 24:00 Hrs. (IST) on 14.11.2022
at the following websites: www.wbbpe.org https://
wbbprimaryeducation.org and click on the link: ‘Application
for Recruitment-2022.”
14. It is clear from the above-referred notification dated 21.10.2022
that; i) it invites online applications for recruitment to the posts of
assistant teachers. ii) It also specifies that TET-qualified trained
candidates, “including the appearing candidates for the session
2020-22 in D. El. Ed./ Special D. Ed./ B. Ed. Courses,” will be
eligible to participate. iii) It mentions that there are 11,765 vacancies
and further notifies, iv) that the recruitment shall take place under
664 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the Recruitment Rules, 2016. With this analysis, there cannot be
any doubt about 21.10.2022 being the recruitment notification. This
controversy must end here.
15. The appellants applied as per the recruitment notification dated
21.10.2022, obtained their course completion certificates on
29.11.2022, and the final results for Part II of the examination
were also declared on 30.12.2022. Interviews commenced in
December 2022, and the process was moving towards completion.
At this stage, questioning the legality of the order passed by the
single Judge, the private respondents, who pre-possessed D.El.
Ed. qualification, as on the date of recruitment notification dated
29.09.2022 filed Writ Appeal(s) before the division bench of the
High Court contending that the appellants are ineligible and their
candidature must be rejected. Their primary contention was that
the appellants did not possess the minimum qualification as of the
date of recruitment notification and that the Board could not have
relaxed the recruitment rules permitting the appellants to participate
in the recruitment process.
16. The division bench of the High Court, by its order dated 27.02.2023,
asked the Board to file an affidavit indicating the circumstances in
which the recruitment process was initiated as well as the steps
taken by the Board in conducting the 2020-2022 D.El.Ed. course. In
compliance with the High Court’s order, the Board filed an affidavit,
the relevant portion of the affidavit is as follows:
“4. Before I proceed to deal with the different paragraphs
of the ‘said application’, I consider it necessary to plead
as follows:
A) The core controversy in the present lis is as to whether
the West Bengal Board of Primary Education [hereafter
WBBPE] by permitting candidates {who were yet to
clear their Part II examination conducted by WBBPE} to
participate in the 2022 recruitment process committed
any illegality.
B) Notification dated 29/07/2011 [Page 84 of the ‘said
application’] issued by NCTE, considered by the answering
respondents to be relevant is inter alia extracted infra:
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 665

Soumen Paul & Ors. v. Shrabani Nayek & Ors.

1. Minimum Qualifications:-
(i) Classes I-V
a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least
50% marks and 2 years 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 two year Diploma in Elementary
Education (by whatever name known)
C) The aforesaid notification dated 29/07/2011 lays down
the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for
appointment as a teacher. The notification never stipulates
any date of eligibility. In other words, on and from which
date such eligibility is to be counted and/or assessed is
not specified in the notification. It can be the first day of
January of the year of recruitment; it can be on the date
of recruitment notification or it can be the date on which
the candidate is evaluated. At the cost of prolixity it is
stated that no fixed date of considering the eligibility is
evident from the aforesaid notification of NCTE.
666 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

D) An intending candidate upon clearing his 10+2 Board
Examination is eligible for being admitted in D.El.Ed
course. Since the +2 Board Exam results are normally
published within 15th June of each calendar year, the
two year D.El.Ed course has its session from Ist July to
30th June for the two successive years thereafter. The
examining body in West Bengal for such D.El.Ed course
is WBBPE. The present ad hoc committee of WBBPE
headed by the President of the Board took charge on
24/08/2022. This deponent took charge as the Deputy
Secretary of WBBPE on 26/08/2022. The office bearers
of WBBPE noticed that for the session 2020-2022, the
Part I examination was held by WBBPE after the Part II
session ended on 30/06/2022, between 15/07/2022 and
18/08/2022. WBBPE published the results of Part I D.El.Ed
course vide notification no. 233/ WBBPE/D.El. Ed./2022
dated 29.09.2022. A copy of such notification is annexed
hereto and marked with the letter ‘R-1’.
E) WBBPE immediately thereafter in November, 2022
conducted the Part II examination for the 2020-2022
session; results whereof were published vide notification
no. 325/WBBPE/D.EL.Ed./ 2022 dated 30/12/2022. A
copy of such notification is annexed hereto and marked
with the letter ‘R-2’.
F) At Page 73 of the ‘said application’ is a notification
dated 29/09/2022 issued by WBBPE. Clause 5 of such
notification reads thus: “The Recruitment Notification and
the Application Form will be available in the websites:
www.wbbpe.org https://wbbprimaryeducation.org on or
after 21.10.2022.”
G) In view of the above, the notification dated 29/09/2022
cannot at all be termed as the 2022 recruitment notification.
It is rather an introduction to the recruitment notification
which was published 21/10/2022. A recruitment notification
must contain the number of vacancies which are intended
to be filled up by the examining/ recommending body. The
notification appearing at Page 73 of the ‘said application’
do not contain the number of vacancies.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 667

Soumen Paul & Ors. v. Shrabani Nayek & Ors.

H) Rule 8(3) Table A of the West Bengal Primary School
Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016 is extracted infra:
Table A

Sl. Item for evaluation Maximum
No. Marks
(i) Madhyamik pass under the West 05
Bengal Board of Secondary
Education or its equivalent.
(ii) Higher Secondary pass under 10
the West Bengal Council of
Higher Secondary Education or
its equivalent.
(iii) Training as specified by NCTE 15
(iv) Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) 05
(v) Extra Curricular Activities 05
(vi) Viva Voce or Interview 05
(vii) Aptitude Test 05
Total 50

I) Vide memo no. 2235/ WBBPE/2022 dated 21/12/2022,
the Board notified that it is going to conduct the first phase
of interview/viva voce and aptitude test centrally under
its direct supervision and monitoring. A copy of such
notification without its enclosure is annexed hereto and
marked with the letter ‘R-3’
J) The concluding paragraph of the said notification reads
thus:
“In order to dissipate any confusion/ambiguity, the
examining/recommending body, being the Board makes
it abundantly clear that the State Wide Merit List, for the
2022 Recruitment process will only be published after
assessing/evaluating every benchmark contained in the
recruitment rules.”
668 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

K) Thus the Board at present is only conducting the viva
voce or interview and the aptitude test of the applicant/
candidates for the 2022 recruitment process. It is yet
to allot marks for the remaining six benchmarks, which
includes marks for training. In other words, the time to allot
marks for D.El.Ed. (Training qualification) is yet to arrive.
Marks for Madhyamik and Higher Secondary cannot be
given at this juncture in view of pendency of the Maitra
Committee’s report which is to be submitted before this
Hon’ble Court in WPA 23585/2022 [Saikat Nandi & Ors.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.].”
17. Finally, by the order impugned before us, the division bench of the
High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the single
Judge. The solitary factor that impressed the High Court is simply
that, as Rule 6(2) of the Recruitment Rules 2016, as amended on
22.12.2020, unambiguously specified the eligibility qualification
required as on the date of advertisement, candidates must possess
the eligibility qualifications as of the date of the advertisement, i.e.,
29.09.2022. Firstly, the High Court treated the date of notification dated
29.09.2022, instead of recruitment notification dated 21.10.2022, as
the recruitment notification and secondly, it construed the rule to have
prescribed a cut-off date for qualification. In this view of the matter,
the division bench proceeded to set aside the latter part of clause
(3b) of the notification dated 29.09.2022 enabling candidates like the
appellants to participate in the selection process, virtually holding
all the appellants ineligible for even participating in the selection
process. The relevant portion of the High Court order is as under:
“…Having heard the parties and considering the materials
placed, this Court is of the clear view that the Board cannot
travel beyond its own Recruitment Rules. Apropos the
above discussion, the 2016 Recruitment Rules as amended
by the Notification dated 22nd December, 2020 (supra)
unambiguously specifies the eligibility qualification required
as on the date of the advertisement. The nature of such
qualification is also specified by the NCTE Notification
dated 23rd August, 2010.
This Court further notices that the law is settled on the
point, which stands also discussed above, that the eligibility
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 669

Soumen Paul & Ors. v. Shrabani Nayek & Ors.

qualifications must be possessed by any candidate on the
date of the Recruitment Notification. It is undisputed that the
private Respondents in MAT 1725 of 2022 and MAT 1837
of 2022 acquired the minimum eligibility condition of D.El.
Ed on 29th November, 2022, i.e. much after the publication
of the Recruitment Notification on 29th September, 2022.
In view of such position the Board could not have created
room for the Private Respondents/the Writ Petitioners to
apply without possessing the eligibility qualification as on
the date of the advertisement.
This Court also finds the argument of the Board in its
affidavit (supra) that the Notification dated the 29th of
September, 2022 is not the Recruitment Notification
inasmuch as it did not contain the number of vacancies
to be filled up, to be fallacious.
This Court finds the argument of the Board to be equally
fallacious that the Notification dated 29th September, 2022
was a preparatory exercise to the actual Recruitment
Notification dated 21st October, 2022 which carried the
number of vacancies to be filled up.
The above arguments of the Board are self-defeating
inasmuch as this Court finds that the Board always intended
to act upon the Notification dated 29th September, 2022
which carried the eligibility for the writ petitioners who were
not D.El.Ed qualified to apply. The argument of the Board
cannot be also sustained since, even as on 21st October,
2022 described by the Board as the proper Recruitment
Notification, the writ petitioners were not D.El.Ed qualified
candidates.
Accordingly, the appeals succeed.
The Orders impugned of the Hon’ble Single Bench stand
set aside.”
18. Challenging the judgment and order passed by the division bench,
appellants filed the present civil appeals. We heard Mr. P. S. Patwalia,
Mr. Rauf Rahim, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Ld. Sr. Counsels for the
appellant(s). We also heard Mr. Jaideep Gupta, assisted by Mr. Kunal
Chatterjee for the Board and Mr. Subir Sanyal, Mr. Biswajit Deb, Ld.
670 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Sr. Counsels for the respondent(s), Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan,
Ld. Sr. Counsel assisted by other Ld. counsels appeared for NIOS
(distance education) candidates who have pursued the D.El.Ed.
degree through open/distance learning and have filed intervention
applications before this Court seeking directions that they may also
be allowed to participate in the recruitment process at par with the
other D.El.Ed. degree holder candidates. We may mention at this
very stage that we have informed all the learned counsels appearing
for the persons who have filed impleadment petitions that we will not
be entertaining these applications, but would allow them to withdraw
and avail such remedies as may be available to them.
19. Re: Interpretation of Rule 6(2) of the West Bengal School Teachers
Recruitment Rules, 2016: NCTE is the statutory regulator for teacher
education.10 In exercise of its powers under Section 32 of the NCTE
Act, it makes regulations specifying norms, standards and guidelines,
inter alia prescribing minimum qualifications and one such exercise
is the prescription of minimum qualifications for teachers under
notification dated 29.07.2011. The West Bengal School Teachers
Recruitment Rules, 2016, by itself does not prescribe the minimum
educational qualifications for teachers. Instead, through Rule 6 of the
Recruitment Rules 2016 it incorporates the minimum qualifications as
prescribed by NCTE from time to time. Rule 6(2) of the Recruitment
Rules 2016 is intended to incorporate NCTE qualification that is
relevant as on the date of recruitment, and as such, the provision
had to be worded flexibly to accommodate changes that may be
brought about by the NCTE from time to time. In order to ensure
a seamless adaptation of amendments, modifications, or variations
prescribed by NCTE from time to time, the Rule adopts the standard
legislative device of simply incorporating and referring to the minimum
qualifications as prescribed by NCTE. Further, to ensure that the latest
prescription of NCTE should be made applicable for any recruitment,
the rule also provides that the qualifications prescribed by NCTE,
“prevailing as on the date of publication of recruitment notification,”
must be possessed by the candidate.

10 National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 “An Act to provide for the establishment of a National
Council for Teacher Education with a view to achieving planned and co-ordinated development of the
teacher education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and
standards in the teacher education system [including qualifications of school teachers] and for matters
connected therewith”.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 671

Soumen Paul & Ors. v. Shrabani Nayek & Ors.

20. The intendment of Rule 6(2) of the Recruitment Rules 2016 is only
to declare that the qualifications as prescribed by NCTE and that are
prevailing on the date of publication of the recruitment notification
should be possessed by the candidate. The purpose and object
of the rule is not at all to declare a cut-off date for obtaining the
qualifications. We are in complete agreement with the clear stand
taken by the Board in its affidavit filed before the division bench of
the High Court, in which the Board clarified the position as under:
“C) The aforesaid notification dated 29/07/2011 lays down
the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for
appointment as a teacher. The notification never stipulates
any date of eligibility. In other words, on and from which
date such eligibility is to be counted and/or assessed is
not specified in the notification. It can be the first day of
January of the year of recruitment; it can be on the date of
recruitment notification or it can be the date on which the
candidate is evaluated. At the cost of prolixity it is stated
that no fixed date of considering the eligibility is evident
from the aforesaid notification of NCTE.”
21. Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the opinion that the
High Court committed a mistake in interpreting and construing Rule
6(2) as a provision prescribing some kind of a cut-off date by which
time the minimum educational qualifications must be possessed. This
reasoning is contrary to the text of the rule, it is also contrary to the
clear and unambiguous stand of the Board. The interpretation of Rule
6(2) adopted by the division bench is incorrect and the judgment on
this issue is hereby set aside.
22. Re: The principle as regards the date by which the candidates for
selection must possess the qualifications, as per the precedents of
this Court. We must also deal with the argument of Mr. Subir Sanyal,
learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that, as
per the principles of law laid down by this Court that if the recruitment
rule or the notification does not provide a date by which the minimum
qualifications must be possessed, the relevant date shall be the last
date for receipt of the applications. He relied on the judgment of
this Court in Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab11 formulating

11 (2000) 5 SCC 262.
672 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

certain principles for determining the date by which candidates must
possess eligible qualifications.
23. The issue regarding the date by which candidates for selection
must possess the minimum qualifications prescribed for recruitment
is no more res-integra. Apart from the decision of this Court in
Bhupinderpal Singh (supra) referred to by Mr. Sanyal, there are
many other precedents, which were referred to and considered in a
later decision of this Court in Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT
of Delhi).12 The relevant portion of the order is as follows;
“11. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition
that the selection process commences on the date when
applications are invited. Any person eligible on the last
date of submission of the application has a right to be
considered against the said vacancy provided he fulfils
the requisite qualification.
12. In U.P. Public Service Commission v. Alpana13, this
Court, after considering a large number of its earlier
judgments, held that eligibility conditions should be
examined as on the last date for receipt of applications by
the Commission. That too was a case where the result of
a candidate was declared subsequent to the last date of
submission of the applications. This Court held that as the
result does not relate back to the date of examination and
eligibility of the candidate is to be considered on the last
date of submission of applications, therefore, a candidate,
whose result has not been declared up to the last date of
submission of applications, would not be eligible.
13. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in M.V. Nair v. Union
of India14 held as under
“9. … It is well settled that suitability and eligibility have to
be considered with reference to the last date for receiving
the applications, unless, of course, the notification calling
for applications itself specifies such a date.”

12 (2013) 11 SCC 58
13 (1994) 2 SCC 723.
14 (1993) 2 SCC 429.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 673

Soumen Paul & Ors. v. Shrabani Nayek & Ors.

14. In Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions,15
this Court held:
“2. … It is to be seen that when the recruitment is sought
to be made, the last date has been fixed for receipt of the
applications. Such of those candidates, who possessed of
all the qualifications as on that date, alone are eligible to
apply for and to be considered for recruitment according
to the rules.”
15. This Court in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of
Rajasthan16 held:
“10. The contention that the required qualifications of the
candidates should be examined with reference to the date
of selection and not with reference to the last date for
making applications has only to be stated to be rejected.
The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence
of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the
posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified
for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the
qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed
date with reference to which the qualifications are to be
judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise,
it would not be possible for the candidates who do not
possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to
make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date
may also lead to a contrary consequence viz. even those
candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti
and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date,
may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of
applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in
that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date
of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain
some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in
the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/
notification inviting applications with reference to which the
requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain

15 (1995) Supp. 4 SCC 706.
16 (1993) Supp. 3 SCC 168.
674 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last
date for making the applications. … Reference in this
connection may also be made to two recent decisions of
this Court in A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat
Chandra17 and Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential
School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi18.”
16. In Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekher19, the
majority view was as under:
“15. The fact is that the appellants did pass the
examination and were fully qualified for being selected
prior to the date of interview. By allowing the appellants
to sit for the interview and by their selection on the basis
of their comparative merits, the recruiting authority was
able to get the best talents available. It was certainly in
the public interest that the interview was made as broad
based as was possible on the basis of qualification. The
reasoning of the learned Single Judge was thus based on
sound principle with reference to comparatively superior
merits. It was in the public interest that better candidates
who were fully qualified on the dates of selection were
not rejected, notwithstanding that the results of the
examination in which they had appeared had been
delayed for no fault of theirs. The appellants were fully
qualified on the dates of the interview and taking into
account the generally followed principle of Rule 37 in
the State of Jammu & Kashmir, we are of opinion that
the technical view adopted by the learned Judges of the
Division Bench was incorrect….”
However, the opinion of R.M. Sahai, J. had been that
these 33 persons could not have been allowed to appear
for the interview as they did not possess the requisite
eligibility/qualification on the last date of submission of
applications.

17 (1990) 2 SCC 669.
18 (1990) 3 SCC 655.
19 (1993) Supp. 2 SCC 611.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 675

Soumen Paul & Ors. v. Shrabani Nayek & Ors.

17. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar
Sharma v. Chander Shekhar20 reconsidered and explained
the judgment of Ashok Kumar Sharma (1993) observing:
“6. The proposition that where applications are called for
prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the
applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to
be judged with reference to that date and that date alone,
is a well-established one. A person who acquires the
prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date
cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification
issued/published calling for applications constitutes a
representation to the public and the authority issuing it is
bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it.
One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known
that persons who obtained the qualifications after the
prescribed date but before the date of interview would be
allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed
persons could also have applied. Just because some of
the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not
acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed
date, they could not have been treated on a preferential
basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at
the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in
fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority judgment.”
The Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma (1997) 4 SCC 18
further explained that the majority view in Ashok Kumar
Sharma (1993) was not correct, rather the dissenting view
by R.M. Sahai, J. was correct as the Court held as under:
“6. … The reasoning in the majority opinion that by
allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview,
the recruiting authority was able to get the best talent
available and that such course was in furtherance of public
interest is, with respect, an impermissible justification. It
is, in our considered opinion, a clear error of law and an
error apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion,
R.M. Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court)

20 (1997) 4 SCC 18.
676 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have
been allowed to appear for the interview.”
(emphasis supplied)

24. The law on the subject was also considered by the recent Constitution
Bench decision of this Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak v.
Rajasthan High Court.21 Delivering the judgment of the Court, Justice
Manoj Misra (one of us) succinctly explained the legal position as
follows:
14. In various judicial pronouncements, the law governing
recruitment to public services has been colloquially termed
as “the rules of the game”. The “game” is the process
of selection and appointment. Courts have consistently
frowned upon tinkering with the rules of the game once
the recruitment process commences. This has crystallised
into an oft-quoted legal phrase that “the rules of the game
must not be changed midway, or after the game has been
played”. Broadly speaking these rules fall in two categories.
One which prescribes the eligibility criteria (i.e. essential
qualifications) of the candidates seeking employment;
and the other which stipulates the method and manner of
making the selection from amongst the eligible candidates.
15. Cut-off date with reference to which eligibility has to be
determined is the date appointed by the relevant service
rules; where no such cut-off date is provided in the rules,
then it will be the date appointed in the advertisement
inviting applications; and if there is no such date appointed,
then eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the
last date appointed by which the applications were to be
received.22
25. Re: Application of the interpretation and these precedents to the
facts of the present case. We have already held that Rule 6(2) of
the Recruitment Rules, 2016 does not prescribe a date by which
minimum qualifications must be possessed. We have also upheld the

21 (2025) 2 SCC 1.
22 Placing reliance on Shankar K. Mandal v. State of Bihar, (2003) 9 SCC 519.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 677

Soumen Paul & Ors. v. Shrabani Nayek & Ors.

stand of the Board in this regard. It is in this context that we must
now consider the legality and validity of the recruitment notification
dated 21.10.2022. The need for a close scrutiny of the recruitment
notification is also to ensure that it is in consonance with the law
laid down by this Court.
26. Even as per the decisions of this Court in Bhupinderpal Singh
(supra), the candidate seeking public employment must satisfy
his eligibility requirements in terms of the date appointed by the
relevant service rules and, “if there is no cut-off date appointed by
the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose of
advertisement calling for applications”. Further, if there is no such
date appointed then eligibility criteria shall be with reference to the
last date appointed by which the applications have to be received.
27. The recruitment advertisement dated 21.10.2022, issued in
continuation of the previous notification dated 29.09.2022 invited
applications from TET qualified candidates, “including the appearing
candidates for the session 2020 in D.El.Ed./Special D. Ed./ B.
Ed. Courses in compliance with the order of the Hon’ble High
Court of Calcutta against state-wise vacancies for appointments”.
A recruitment notification occupies an important position in the
recruitment process and this is for the reasons that the candidates
participating in the selection process must be informed of the rules
and regulations that would apply for considering the eligibility of the
participants. It is an important principle of transparency, intended to
prevent illegality and arbitrariness in executive action. As indicated
hereinabove, the advertisement itself specified that candidates such
as the appellants will be entitled to apply and their candidature will
be considered.
28. An important feature of this case is that the appellants were aggrieved
by the inordinate delay in the conduct and completion of the D.El.
Ed. course for the session 2020-22, which was to be concluded
by 30.06.2022. They invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court
with a prayer for immediate declaration of their results in D.El.Ed.,
or in alternative, to direct the State Government not to initiate the
recruitment process pending declaration of their results. The writ
petition was filed by them at the earliest occasion, i.e. on 22.08.2022,
i.e. without any delay. The learned single Judge of the High Court
did not take up the writ petition on merits. Had the learned Judge
678 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

dealt with the writ petition on merits, one of the reliefs, as prayed by
the appellants could have been granted i.e., either that the results
would have been directed to be declared immediately or that the
recruitments would have been postponed. Instead, the learned single
Judge disposed of the writ petition on the basis of the submission
made on behalf of the Board proposing an equitable solution for
resolution of the disputes. On the basis of the submission of the
Board, the High Court permitted candidates such as the appellants
to be given an opportunity to participate in the recruitment process.
The learned single Judge of the High Court was not compromising
on the standard prescribed for appointment. It is nobody’s case that
unqualified persons will be appointed. The direction of the learned
Single Judge enabled candidates such as the appellant who were
at the verge of completing the course to participate in the selection
process, and they would have been appointed only upon attaining
the prescribed qualifications.
29. The appellants who applied as per the recruitment notification
dated 21.10.2022 obtained their course completion certificates by
29.11.2022 and their final results were declared on 30.12.2022. The
interviews commenced in December 2022, and when the process
was to be taken to its logical end, the division bench passed the
impugned order, setting aside the direction of the learned Single
Judge by interpreting the 6(2) of the Recruitment Rules 2016 as if
it prescribes a cut-off date for eligibility.
30. The facts of this case reveal a rather extraordinary situation where the
Board and also the High Court (Single Judge) sought to resolve the
problem that had arisen due to late conduct of the 2020-22 of D.El.
Ed. examination immediately after the Covid-19 pandemic. We are
of the opinion that there is no illegality and arbitrariness in the actual
recruitment notification dated 21.10.2022 and that the recruitment
process commenced under the relevant rules and also as per the
directions of the single Judge of the High Court disposing of the writ
petition. It is important to note that the recruitment notification dated
21.10.2022 was not challenged by anyone.
31. The principles laid down by this Court in Bhupinderpal Singh
(supra) and the subsequent decisions as referred to in Rakesh
Kumar Sharma (supra) and also that of the Constitution Bench in
Tej Prakash (supra) hold that the qualifications must be possessed
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 679

Soumen Paul & Ors. v. Shrabani Nayek & Ors.

as per those prescribed in the rules or the notification and in the
absence of both, by reference to the last date appointed for receiving
the applications. The recruitment notification dated 21.10.2022
indicated that the appellants’ will be given an opportunity, and that
intendment must inure to their benefit. Under similar circumstances
in Bhupinderpal Singh (supra), this Court exercised its power
and jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to validate
and legitimise the recruitment process. The relevant portion of the
judgment in Bhupinderpal Singh (supra) is as follows:
“13. ……. (i) that the cut-off date by reference to which the
eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate
seeking a public employment is the date appointed
by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut-off
date appointed by the rules then such date as may be
appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for
applications; (ii) that if there be no such date appointed
then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to
the last date appointed by which the applications have to
be received by the competent authority. The view taken
by the High Court is supported by several decisions of this
Court and is therefore well settled and hence cannot be
found fault with. However, there are certain special features
of this case which need to be taken care of and justice
be done by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 142 of
the Constitution vested in this Court so as to advance the
cause of justice.”
(emphasis supplied)

32. Apart from our reasoning that the recruitment notification dated
21.10.2022 is legal and valid also, we have no hesitation in exercising
our power and jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to
do complete justice for the parties.
33. In view of the above, we allow the appeals and set aside the judgment
of the division bench in M.A.T. No. 1725 of 2022 dated 11.04.2023
and we direct that the recruitment process which commenced in the
notification dated 21.10.2022 must proceed further and the Board
must take immediate steps for concluding the recruitment process
as expeditiously as possible.
680 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

34. Our consideration was confined to examine the legality and validity
of the judgment and order passed by the division bench of the High
Court. All applications for impleadment are dismissed as withdrawn.
The applicants are permitted to avail such remedies as are available to
them in law. If remedies are invoked, their prayers will be considered
and disposed of by the respective courts or tribunals on their own
merits.
35. Pending applications, including the applications for intervention/
impleadment, are disposed of accordingly.

Result of the case: Appeals allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey