Service cannot be terminated or salary withheld solely on a disputed NIOS result pending verification.

The petitioner was appointed as an untrained Panchayat Teacher on 11 August 2013 and joined service on 20 August 2013 at a Government Primary School in Buxar, Bihar.

While in service, he enrolled in the NIOS D.El.Ed. programme for the 2017–2019 session and participated in the prescribed examinations.

Although he claimed to have completed the training, his result published on 7 January 2020 showed “0000” against TMA Nos. 506–509 and WBA/PT Nos. 513–514, with the status “SYCY”.

The Study Centre Coordinator requested correction of the marks on 14 June 2019, and the petitioner submitted further representations on 2 February 2021 and 20 July 2021, but the result was not corrected.

During the writ proceedings, the petitioner stated that his salary had been stopped from February 2023 without notice.

The State subsequently requested NIOS to correct and publish his result by Letter No. 544 dated 12 September 2024.

Proceedings for his removal from service were initiated by Letter No. 719 dated 19 November 2024 on the ground that he had not passed the NIOS examination.

However, a subsequent communication dated 19 December 2024 stated that the petitioner had passed all papers and that the incomplete marks-sheet resulted from a mechanical or technical defect.

NIOS disputed the petitioner’s reliance on offline records and maintained that the result had been processed on the basis of marks uploaded online.

1. Whether the entries “00-00”/“0000” against the petitioner’s TMA and WBA/PT components resulted from an administrative or technical lapse attributable to the Study Centre or NIOS, rather than from the petitioner’s failure to complete the components.

2. Whether NIOS was required to consider the communications and representations seeking correction of the petitioner’s result and to publish a complete and correct result.

3. Whether the petitioner, as an in-service teacher who undertook the NIOS D.El.Ed. programme, was entitled to the benefit of the one-time relaxation or recognition extended to similarly situated in-service untrained teachers.

4. Whether stoppage of salary from February 2023 and initiation of removal proceedings without notice, and on the basis of a disputed examination result, were legally sustainable.

The Court relied on the statutory and regulatory framework governing minimum qualifications for elementary teachers under Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the NCTE recognition order dated 22 September 2017, and the one-time arrangement permitting in-service untrained teachers to acquire the requisite qualification through the NIOS D.El.Ed. programme.

It considered Sanjay Kumar Yadav v. State of Bihar, CWJC No. 19842 of 2019, which held that the NIOS D.El.Ed. course could not be rejected on the basis of a misreading of NCTE clarification.

It further applied Jaiveer Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1584, and Kousik Das v. State of West Bengal, 2025 INSC 448, recognising the one-time relaxation for in-service teachers under the NCTE order dated 22 September 2017.

The Court also referred to Bibi Sakina Khatoon v. Union of India, 2024 (3) BLJ 1, concerning the relevance of the teacher’s date of appointment and acquisition of the requisite qualification.

The Court also referred to Khushbu Kumari v. Union of India, CWJC No. 2286 of 2023, concerning the need to examine supported discrepancies in NIOS results.

The principles of natural justice required that no adverse service action be taken on the basis of a disputed academic record without verification and an opportunity of hearing.

The Court found that the petitioner’s grievance could not be rejected merely because the supporting records were handwritten or maintained offline.

The Study Centre Coordinator’s letter dated 14 June 2019, the State’s request for correction dated 12 September 2024, and the communication dated 19 December 2024 constituted material requiring examination by NIOS.

At the same time, because NIOS disputed the reliability of those materials and relied on its online records, the Court declined to itself determine the marks or substitute its assessment for that of the academic authority.

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to a fresh verification of the relevant assignment, examination, attendance, and connected records.

Since the stoppage of salary and proposed removal were founded on the disputed assertion that he had failed the NIOS examination, those actions could not be sustained conclusively before the petitioner’s actual academic status was determined.

Any adverse action would also require notice and an opportunity of hearing.

The Court therefore adopted a limited supervisory remedy rather than directing automatic declaration of the petitioner as successful.

The Regional Director, NIOS, was directed to conduct a fresh verification of the petitioner’s records relating to TMA Nos. 506–509 and WBA/PT Nos. 513–514 for the 2017–2019 D.El.Ed. session, consider the relevant communications and records, and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

Depending on the outcome, NIOS was directed to revise and publish the result and issue the appropriate training certificate.

Pending verification, Letter No. 719 dated 19 November 2024 was to remain in abeyance insofar as it concerned the petitioner, and no final removal order could be passed solely on the basis of the disputed result.

The respondents were also directed not to withhold the petitioner’s current salary solely because of the disputed NIOS result; his claim for arrears from 1 February 2023 was left for consideration under the applicable service rules and in light of the verification outcome.

If verification showed that the petitioner had not completed the concerned components, the authorities could proceed only by passing a reasoned order after granting him an opportunity of hearing.