2025 INSC 448 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 19139 of 2024)

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

order dated 24

th 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

of the appellants before this Court thereby affirming the judgment

2

and order dated 29

th 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

Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter, “RTE Act”) came into force on 1

st

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.

4.2 On 28

th November 2014, the NCTE, in supersession of

the previous regulations, prescribed the NCTE (Recognition, Norms

and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter, “2014 NCTE

Regulations”).

3

4.3 On 3

rd 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

period for such training is being extended to 31

st 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

beyond 1

st April 2019. Thereafter, on 10

th August 2017 the

amendment to the RTE Act (Act No. 24 of 2017) was notified by

way of a Gazette Notification.

4.4 On 22

nd 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

of the letter dated 3

rd 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

4

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

in-service untrained teachers by 31

st 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.

4.6 On 29

th 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.

4.7 On 6

th July 2023, a set of candidates desirous of

recruitment to the post of Assistant Teachers in terms of the

notification dated 29

th 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

5

NIOS i.e., by sitting for the 18 months D. El. Ed. programme,

should not be considered for the purposes of recruitment in terms

of the recruitment notification dated 29

th 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.

The State of Uttarakhand & Ors.

1.

4.9 On 29

th February 2024, the learned Single Judge of the

High Court, after referring to the judgment of this Court in the case

of Jaiveer Singh, disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the

1

2023 SCC Online SC 1584

6

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.

4.11 On 24

th 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.

4.13 On 14

th 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.

4.14 It is pertinent to note that on 10

th 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

of Uttarakhand & Ors.

2 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]

7

4.15 On 21

st 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

by the order of this Court in the case of Viswanath 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

Government through MHRD by way of a letter dated 31

st August

2017 had extended the period for training of such of the in-service

untrained teachers in Government/Government Aided/Unaided -

Private Schools to 31

st 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.

8

programme to 18 months. It is, therefore, submitted that any

teacher who was in-service as on 10

th August 2017 and who has

undertaken the 18 months D. El. Ed. programme through NIOS

before 31

st 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

appellants were in-service as on 10

th August 2017 and further that

they had completed the 18 months D. El. Ed. programme through

NIOS before 31

st 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

employment as on 10

th 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

9

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

after the cut-off date of 31

st 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

notification dated 29

th 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

10

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

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

th

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

11

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.

13. It however so happens that on 3

rd 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

on 10

th 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

appointed or in position as on 31

st 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

of commencement of the 2017 Amendment Act being 1

st April

12

2015, the in-service untrained elementary teachers had to acquire

the minimum qualifications by 31

st 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.

15. The NCTE, thereafter, on 22

nd 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

as it stood amended on 10

th 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

training of such of in-service untrained elementary teachers by 31

st

March 2019.

13

16. It appears that the appellants availed of the opportunity

to complete their 18 months D. El. Ed. programme through NIOS

in terms of the Recognition Order dated 22

nd September 2017

passed by the NCTE.

17. The present lis, however, started with the issuance of a

notification dated 29

th September 2022 by the WBBPE for the

recruitment of qualified trained candidates to the posts of

Assistant Teachers in Government Aided/Government

Sponsored/Junior Basic Primary Schools. On 6

th 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.

14

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,

disposed of the Writ Petition on 29

th 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

dated 24

th 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

to ascertain the correctness of the judgment and order dated 14

th

15

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

16

limitations as it may consider necessary.

It further provides that no relaxation

would be granted under the Regulations

with regard to minimum qualifications for

appointment of teachers for Level 3 (Class

I to VIII) as specified in the First Schedule.

It is further submitted that NCTE

recognition order dated 22

nd

September

2017 for conducting 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 Governm ent, Government

Aided and Unaided Private Schools

appointed on or before 10

th

August

2017. It is submitted that this is clear

from the communication of NCTE dated

6

th

September 2019. It is further

submitted that the said communication

itself would clarify that insofar as

minimum qualifications for appointment

of teachers is concerned, it will be

necessary to possess a 2 years Diploma in

Elementary Education.”

(emphasis supplied)

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.

17

25. This Court, thereafter, considered Section 23 of the RTE

Act, the 2017 Amendment Act, the 2014 NCTE Regulations, the

letter by the Central Government dated 3

rd August 2017, the

Recognition Order dated 22

nd 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

and 31

st

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”

41. The letter dated 11

th 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

30

th

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

18

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

6

th 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.

19

(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

on 6

th 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

dated 22

nd

September 2017 was only for

those untrained in-service teachers in

Government/ Government Aided/

Unaided Private Schools, who were

appointed on or before 10

th

August

2017. It further clarifies that for fresh

appointment of teachers for Primary and

Upper Primary level, NCTE notifications

dated 23

rd August 2010 and 29

th July

2011 need to be strictly adhered to. It is

further to be noted that whereas

notifications dated 23

rd August 2010 and

29

th July 2011 specifically refer to powers

conferred under sub-section (1) of Section

23 of the RTE Act, NCTE recognition order

dated 22

nd 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

qualifications prior to 1

st

April 2019,

they could not have continued to

remain in service and would have faced

20

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

notifications of NCTE dated 23

rd August

2010 and 29

th 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

(MHRD) and 31

st 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

the NIOS portal as on the 30

th September 2017. Not only that but

this Court also observed that the NCTE Recognition Order dated

22

nd September 2017 was only for those untrained in-service

teachers in Government/Government Aided/Unaided Private

Schools, who were appointed on or before 10

th 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

to 1

st April 2019, they could not have continued to remain in

service and would have faced dismissal.

21

27. It can thus be seen that this Court specifically observed

that the NCTE Recognition Order dated 22

nd September 2019 was

issued so as to provide a one-time window to the teachers who

were already working as on 10

th August 2017 and who were

required to acquire the minimum qualifications prior to 1

st 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-

service as on 10

th August 2017 but who had not acquired the

minimum qualifications till then could have availed of the one-time

scheme as sanctioned by the NCTE Recognition Order dated 22

nd

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

22

with a 2 years D. El. Ed., if they completed their 18 months

programme through NIOS prior to 1

st April 2019. Any other

candidate who was not in-service as on 10

th 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:

“56. In view of what has been held by this

Court hereinabove, we find that the High

Court erred in holding that 18 months

Diploma conducted by NIOS through ODL

mode is equivalent to the 2 years regular

Diploma, particularly so, when there was

no material placed on record to even

remotely hold that such a qualification

was recommended by the Expert Body

NCTE. On the contrary, the

communication dated 6

th September 2019

of NCTE, the directives of MHRD so also

the recognition order dated

22

nd September 2017 clearly go on to show

that the 18 months Diploma was provided

as a one time window to the in-service

teachers to acquire the minimum

qualifications between the 2017

Amendment Act and the outer limit of

1

st April 2019. In our considered view, the

High Court has totally erred in holding

that the 2 years Diploma is equivalent to

18 months Diploma.”

30. Perusal of the judgment and order of the learned Single

Judge of the High Court would show that the learned Judge

referred to paragraphs 44, 45, 56 and 57 of the judgment of this

23

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

dated 22

nd September 2017 was for the purpose of providing a

window to the in-service teachers inasmuch as unless they would

have acquired requisite qualifications prior to 1

st April 2019, they

24

would not have continued to remain in service and would have

faced dismissal from service. As such, any teacher who was in-

service as on 10

th August 2017 and who acquired the qualification

of D. El. Ed. by way of the 18 months programme through NIOS

prior to 1

st 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

10

th 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.

36. By an order dated 10

th 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

dated 10

th 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

25

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)

26

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

teachers who were employed as on 10

th 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

as on 10

th 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

clarification issued by this Court on 10

th December 2024 would be

effective from the date of pronouncement of the judgment of this

Court in the case of Jaiveer Singh i.e., 28

th November 2023.

38. Not only that but this Court on 5

th 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

teachers who were in employment as on 10

th 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.

27

39. It is, therefore, clear that in light of the judgment of this

Court in the case of Jaiveer Singh so also the order dated 10

th

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;

ii. The judgment and order dated 29

th February 2024

passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court is

quashed and set aside;

iii. The judgment and order dated 24

th 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

employment as on 10

th August 2017 and who completed

the 18 months D. El. Ed. (ODL) programme through

NIOS before 1

st April 2019 shall be considered as valid

diploma holders for the purpose of applying in other

institutions and/or for promotional avenues.

28

vi. We direct the respondent-authorities to consider the

candidature of such of the appellants who were in-

service as on 10

th 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.