Kousik Das vs. The State Of West Bengal

2025 INSC 448

KOUSIK DAS & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)



J U D G M E N T


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.
3. The appellants take exception to the final judgment and
th
order dated 24 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2025.04.04
16:56:25 IST
Reason:
of the appellants before this Court thereby affirming the judgment
1


th
and order dated 29 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
st
Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter, “RTE Act”) came into force on 1
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 .
th
4.2 On 28 November 2014, the NCTE, in supersession of
the previous regulations, prescribed the NCTE (Recognition, Norms
and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter, “2014 NCTE
Regulations”).
2


rd
4.3 On 3 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
st
period for such training is being extended to 31 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
st th
beyond 1 April 2019. Thereafter, on 10 August 2017 the
amendment to the RTE Act (Act No. 24 of 2017) was notified by
way of a Gazette Notification.
nd
4.4 On 22 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
rd
of the letter dated 3 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
3


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
st
in-service untrained teachers by 31 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.
th

4.6 On 29 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.
th
4.7 On 6 July 2023, a set of candidates desirous of
recruitment to the post of Assistant Teachers in terms of the
th
notification dated 29 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
4


NIOS i.e., by sitting for the 18 months D. El. Ed. programme,
should not be considered for the purposes of recruitment in terms
th
of the recruitment notification dated 29 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 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.
1
The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. .
th
4.9 On 29 February 2024, the learned Single Judge of the
High Court, after referring to the judgment of this Court in the case
of Jaiveer Singh , the Writ Petition by directing the
disposed of

1
2023 SCC Online SC 1584

5


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.
th
4.11 On 24 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.
th

4.13 On 14 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.
th
4.14 It is pertinent to note that on 10 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
2
of Uttarakhand & Ors. 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 .

2
Review Petition (C) No. … of 2024 [Diary No. 4961/2024]
6


st
4.15 On 21 February 2025, another co-ordinate bench of
this Court, taking note of the fact that the judgment of this Court
in the case of Jaiveer Singh so also the subsequent clarification
Viswanath
by the order of this Court in the case of 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
st
Government through MHRD by way of a letter dated 31 August
2017 had extended the period for training of such of the in-service
untrained teachers in Government/Government Aided/Unaided-
st
Private Schools to 31 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.
7


programme to 18 months. It is, therefore, submitted that any
th
teacher who was in-service as on 10 August 2017 and who has
undertaken the 18 months D. El. Ed. programme through NIOS
st
before 31 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
th
appellants were in-service as on 10 August 2017 and further that
they had completed the 18 months D. El. Ed. programme through
st
NIOS before 31 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
th
employment as on 10 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
8


by this Court in the case of Viswanath , the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court be quashed and set-aside.
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
st
after the cut-off date of 31 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
th
notification dated 29 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
9


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
th
be eligible for appointment as a teacher. Pursuant thereto, on 28
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
10


sessions/years. It can, therefore, be seen 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.
rd
13. It however so happens that on 3 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
th
on 10 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
st
appointed or in position as on 31 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
st
of commencement of the 2017 Amendment Act being 1 April
11


2015, the in-service untrained elementary teachers had to acquire
st
the minimum qualifications by 31 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.
nd
15. The NCTE, thereafter, on 22 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
th
as it stood amended on 10 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
st
training of such of in-service untrained elementary teachers by 31
March 2019.
12


16. It appears that the appellants availed of the opportunity
to complete their 18 months D. El. Ed. programme through NIOS
nd
in terms of the Recognition Order dated 22 September 2017
passed by the NCTE.
17. The present lis , however, started with the issuance of a
th
notification dated 29 September 2022 by the WBBPE for the
recruitment of qualified trained candidates to the posts of
Assistant Teachers in Government Aided/Government
th
Sponsored/Junior Basic Primary Schools. On 6 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.
13


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,
th
disposed of the Writ Petition on 29 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
th
dated 24 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.
21. This Court in the case of Jaiveer Singh was called upon
th
to ascertain the correctness of the judgment and order dated 14
14


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
15

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.
16


25. This Court, thereafter, considered Section 23 of the RTE
Act, the 2017 Amendment Act, the 2014 NCTE Regulations, the
rd
letter by the Central Government dated 3 August 2017, the
nd
Recognition Order dated 22 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
st
and 31 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”
th
41. The letter dated 11 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
th
30 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.
42. It is further to be noted that a
communication was addressed by the
17


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
th
6 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.
18


(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.”
43. It can thus clearly be seen that as
th
on 6 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
nd
dated 22 September 2017 was only for
those untrained in-service teachers in
Government/ Government Aided/
Unaided Private Schools, who were
th
appointed on or before 10 August
2017. It further clarifies that for fresh
appointment of teachers for Primary and
Upper Primary level, NCTE notifications
rd th
dated 23 August 2010 and 29 July
2011 need to be strictly adhered to. It is
further to be noted that whereas
rd
notifications dated 23 August 2010 and
th
29 July 2011 specifically refer to powers
conferred under sub-section (1) of Section
23 of the RTE Act, NCTE recognition order
nd
dated 22 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
st
qualifications prior to 1 April 2019,
they could not have continued to
remain in service and would have faced
19


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
rd
notifications of NCTE dated 23 August
th
2010 and 29 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
st
(MHRD) and 31 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
th
the NIOS portal as on the 30 September 2017. Not only that but
this Court also observed that the NCTE Recognition Order dated
nd
22 September 2017 was only for those untrained in-service
teachers in Government/Government Aided/Unaided Private
th
Schools, who were appointed on or before 10 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
st
to 1 April 2019, they could not have continued to remain in
service and would have faced dismissal.
20


27. It can thus be seen that this Court specifically observed
nd
that the NCTE Recognition Order dated 22 September 2019 was
issued so as to provide a one-time window to the teachers who
th
were already working as on 10 August 2017 and who were
st
required to acquire the minimum qualifications prior to 1 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-
th
service as on 10 August 2017 but who had not acquired the
minimum qualifications till then could have availed of the one-time
nd
scheme as sanctioned by the NCTE Recognition Order dated 22
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
21


with a 2 years D. El. Ed., if they completed their 18 months
st
programme through NIOS prior to 1 April 2019. Any other
th
candidate who was not in-service as on 10 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:

Judge of the High Court would show that the learned Judge
referred to paragraphs 44, 45, 56 and 57 of the judgment of this
22


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
nd
dated 22 September 2017 was for the purpose of providing a
window to the in-service teachers inasmuch as unless they would
st
have acquired requisite qualifications prior to 1 April 2019, they
23


would not have continued to remain in service and would have
faced dismissal from service. As such, any teacher who was in-
th
service as on 10 August 2017 and who acquired the qualification
of D. El. Ed. by way of the 18 months programme through NIOS
st
prior to 1 April 2019 is a valid 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
th
10 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.
th
36. By an order dated 10 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
th
dated 10 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
24


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.

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)
25


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
th
teachers who were employed as on 10 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
th
as on 10 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
th
clarification issued by this Court on 10 December 2024 would be
effective from the date of pronouncement of the judgment of this
th
Court in the case of Jaiveer Singh i.e., 28 November 2023.
th

38. Not only that but this Court on 5 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
th
teachers who were in employment as on 10 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.
26


39. It is, therefore, clear that in light of the judgment of this
th
Court in the case of Jaiveer Singh so also the order dated 10
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;
th
ii. The judgment and order dated 29 February 2024
passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court is
quashed and set aside;
th
iii. The judgment and order dated 24 July 2024 passed by
the Division Bench of the High Court is quashed and set
aside;
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
th
employment as on 10 August 2017 and who completed
the 18 months D. El. Ed. (ODL) programme through
st
NIOS before 1 April 2019 shall be considered as valid
diploma holders for the purpose of applying in other
institutions and/or for promotional avenues.
27


vi. We direct the respondent-authorities to consider the
candidature of such of the appellants who were in-
th
service as on 10 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.

..............................J.
(B.R. GAVAI)


............................................J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)

NEW DELHI;
APRIL 04, 2025.


28