Eligibility for public appointment is governed by the rules in force at appointment.

The respondent obtained a Senior Teacher Training Certificate from Dr. B. C. Roy College of Education, Calcutta, on 2 January 1995, before the NCTE Act came into force.

He was appointed as a Trained Block Teacher on 11 September 2007 under the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006.

In 2015, the District Programme Officer found that the certificate had been issued by an unrecognized institution, and the respondent’s services were terminated.

The District Teacher Appellate Authority set aside the termination, but the State Appellate Authority reversed that decision.

The High Court Division Bench allowed the respondent’s appeal and ordered reinstatement with consequential benefits; the State appealed to the Supreme Court.

1. Whether the respondent was eligible for appointment as a Trained Block Teacher in 2007 under the 2006 Rules, given that his training certificate was not from an NCTE-recognized institution.

2. Whether the fact that the certificate pre-dated the commencement of the NCTE Act meant that the Act’s recognition requirements did not apply to the respondent’s eligibility for appointment.

Rule 8(a) of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 required a Trained Block Teacher to hold a teacher-training diploma or certificate from an institute recognized by the NCTE; the Rule also addressed candidates who had completed specified training qualifications before the NCTE Act came into force.

The Court applied the principle that eligibility for public appointment is assessed by the applicable recruitment rules, at the latest by the date of appointment.

The NCTE Act came into force on 1 July 1995.

The Court also referred to Seema Kumari v. State of Jharkhand, (2006) 12 SCC 215, in which the Supreme Court set aside earlier High Court observations about the genuineness of institutions, including Dr. B. C. Roy College of Education.

The Court did not need to determine conclusively whether Dr. B. C. Roy College of Education was genuine or whether its certificate was fake: earlier High Court assessments of the institution’s status had been made without adequate material, and the Supreme Court had set aside the relevant observations.

The decisive question was the respondent’s eligibility when appointed in 2007. Because the appointment was governed by the 2006 Rules, the Court held that the respondent’s pre-Act certificate, which was not recognized by the NCTE, did not satisfy the applicable qualification requirement.

It therefore rejected the Division Bench’s view that the NCTE Act’s prospective operation resolved the respondent’s eligibility.

It allowed the State’s appeal, set aside the High Court Division Bench’s order directing reinstatement, and dismissed the respondent’s LPA.