WP(C)/246/2023 Page 1

GAHC020005762023

2026:GAU-NL:66

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

KOHIMA BENCH

WP(C)/246/2023

1. Rongsenkangla,

Lower Agri Colony Kohima Nagaland.

2. Khekiho Yeptho Hoishe, Village Satakha

Zunheboto.

3. Sennilo Nmesen, Ehunnu Village T5

Seminyu.

4. Smti Pausui Newmai, Ntu Village Pere

5. Smti. Rangwam Zeliang, Jalukie Colony

Ward-9.

6. Khrunezo Swuro, Sekruzu Town Chozuba.

7. Shri Keviletuo Keyho, Tuolazuma Village

Chumukedima.

8. Smti Kenyule Lorin, Lower Kenuozu Hill

Kohima.

9. Lonyule Semp,Tseminyu Old Town Ward

9.

WP(C)/246/2023 Page 2

10. Smti. Henelo Kath, Police Complex

Chumukedima.

11. Shri Limatemsu Aonok, Changki Village

Mokokchung.

12. Shri O. Echanthung Lotha, E. Khel Wokha

Village Wokha.

13. Smti Athonle Seb Tseminyu Town.

14. Smti Lemeno Nagi, Kuda Village A-Khel.

15. Shri Thonyusie Joshoury, Lephori Village

Phek,

16. Shri Hetoho, Khetoi Village Aghunato

Zunheboto.

17. Smti Khrievonuo Nakhro, E. Khel Wokha

Village, Wokha.

18. Shri Marius Shitiri, Lakhuti Village Wokha.

19. Shri Mhonthung Lotha, Tsumang B Wokha

Nagaland.

20. Shri Imkongmeren, New Ministers Hill

Kohima.

21. Smti Hengwale Thyug, New Terogvunyu

Village Tseminyu.

22. Smti Imnatola, Changki Village,

Mokokchung.

23. Shri Supenthung Murry, Wokha Village.

WP(C)/246/2023 Page 3

24. Smti Zakiesanuo Angami, Nerhe Model

Village.

25. Smti Thejanuo Angami Ghs Thetsumi

Phek.

26. Smti Vekute-U Nuh Gps Leangnyu Village

Mon.

27. Shri Tokavi Sema Mishikito Village

Dimapur.

28. Shri Sulto Chaya Gms K Khel Viswema

Kohima.

29. Smti K Chondano Lotha, Shaki Village

Wokha.

30. Shri M Tsabemo Ngullie Sungro Town

Wokha Nagaland.

31. Smti Imtitula Impur Mokokchung.

32. Shri Tenuchuba Jamir New Impai Village

Peren.

33. Smrti T Merenlemla Lakhumi Village

Mokokchung.

34. Shri S. Imsujungba Phom Yaongyimchen

Village.

35. Shri P.Bomthai, Tamlu Village Longleng.

36. Shri Imtingangin Zuxushe Village.

37. P. Temsupokla Longkumer Lower Forest

Colony Kohima.

WP(C)/246/2023 Page 4

38. Smti N.Ngamnon Konyak Mon Town.

39. Smti Khitile Jemu Tesophenyu Village

Tsemenyu.

40. W.Yemnyie Phom Yongshei Village

Longleng.

41. Smti Nchumbeni Tsopeo Mekirang Village

Wokha.

42. Smti Nukshila Sangtam Suhoi Village

Nuiland.

43. Smti Toheli Akuhaito Zunheboto.

44. Smti Kenysinle Magh Upper Midland

Kohima.

45. Shri B.Wanglen Phom Tamlu Village

Longleng.

46. Smti Mhalevinuo Suokhrie Meriema Village

Kohima.

47. Smti Kisheli Jekha Kramsa Vilage

Dimapur.

48. Smti Chubatula Longkongmendang Ward

Tuli Mokokchung.

49. Smti Kesheleno Angeline Tuli Mokokchung

50. Smti Medosanuo Lhousa Mezoma Village

Kohima.

51. Smti Soyhunle Kent, Upper Chandmari

Kohima.

WP(C)/246/2023 Page 5

52. Smti Nevutalu Tetseo, Zani Village

Dimapur.

53. Shri Sentizulu Pongen Changki Village

Mokokchung.

54. Shri Meshenti Magh C.Khel Kuda Village

Dimapur.

55. Imtimangyang Ao Chuchuyimpang Village

Mokokchung.

56. Smti RemenjunglaMoloum Villager

Medziphema.

57. Shri SentiloSemy Nsunyu Village

Tsemenyu.

58. Shri Vihoto K.Sumi, L.Khel, Diphupar

Dimapur.

59. Smti Rokuosienuo, New Market Kohima.

60. Shri Nei-U Angami Chiechama Village

Kohima.

61. Smti L.Alovin Sumi Tobu Mon.

62. Smti Aienla Ao Officers' Hill Kohima.

63. Smti Meyinungla, Penli Ward Mokokchung.

64. Shri Diethose-U Mezoma Village Kohima.

65. Shri Isaac Lotha Pangti Village Wokha.

66. Shri Eluthiyi Ruho Pfusachodu.

67. Shri Longvai Phom Longleng Nagaland.

WP(C)/246/2023 Page 6

68. Shri Kethosilie Sekhose Kohima Village

Kohima.

69. Shri Thungdemo Tsopoe Ghss Sungro

Wokha.

70. Shri Keviyabei Rupreo Chiechama Village

Kohima.

71. Smti K.Bichano Yantha Gms Humtso

Wokha Town.

72. Shri L.Mongchon Khiam Gms New

Pangsha Noklak.

73. Shri Mr.T.Langpe Phom Yongam Village

Longleng.

74. Smti Kirentitla Imkonglenden Colony

Dimapur.

75. Smti T.Lentila Ao Molungyimsen Village

Mokokchung.

76. Smti Watila Ao Aonokpuyimsen

Mokokchung.

77. Smti Mr.E.Lochumi Kikon Wakchung Mon.

78. Shri Kedutsolhou Venuh Phek Town Phe.

…..Petitioners

-Versus-

1. The State of Nagaland,

Represented by the Chief Secretary to the

Government of Nagaland.

WP(C)/246/2023 Page 7

2. The Commissioner and Secretary Department of

School Education Nagaland Kohima.

3. The Principal Director Directorate of School Education

Nagaland.

4. The Principal Government Hindi Institute Dimapur.

Nagaland.

5. The Director Kendriya Hindi Shikshan Mandal

Agra-28200.

……Respondents

For Petitioners

:

Mr. C. T. Jamir, Sr.Advocate

Mr. Aliba Ozukum, Advocate

For Respondents

:

Ms. V. Suokhrie, Additional Advocate General

Date of Hearing

:

21.08.2025

Date of Judgment

:

16.02.2026

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

1. Heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Aliba

Ozukum, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. V.

Suokhrie, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the

State respondents.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

been filed by the petitioners, namely, Ms. Rongsenkangla and 77

others, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus

and/or any other appropriate writ/order or direction of like nature.

WP(C)/246/2023 Page 8

3. In the instant writ petition, the petitioners have impugned the Cir-

cular No. B/HT/RLX/1/2021-2022, dated 15.03.2023 and

28.03.2023 issued by the Directorate of School Education, Nagaland

(Respondent No. 3).

4. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant writ petition, in

brief, are that the petitioners are employed as Primary Hindi teach-

ers under the Directorate of School Education, Nagaland. It is con-

tended in the writ petition that the petitioners had done diploma in

Hindi teaching, on the basis of written tests followed by interviews

conducted by the Government of Nagaland, which had invited appli-

cations from candidates having minimum qualification of Class-8 to

undergo Hindi Teachers training.

5. It is contended by the petitioners that in pursuant to the invitation

by the Government of Nagaland to undergo Hindi Teachers training

they had undergone such training in Government Hindi Institute,

Dimapur for three years. After successfully completing three years

course they were thereafter, sent to Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra

to undergo rigorous teachers education training for one year.

6. It is also contended by the petitioners, in the writ petition, that ini-

tially the eligibility criteria for undergoing Hindi Teachers training

was Class-8 pass in general which was subsequently enhanced to

Class 10 pass and, thereafter, to Class-12 pass. In support of their

contention, the petitioners have annexed several advertisements for

such course in which eligibility criteria have been mentioned as

WP(C)/246/2023 Page 9

stated herein before the petitioners. The petitioners were appointed

on various dates (from 2001 to 2012).

7. Their selection was made by the departmental selection commit-

tees. Though, some of the petitioners were appointed on ad-hoc

basis initially, however, the services of all the petitioners have, in

the meantime, been regularized and they were posted in different

Government Middle Schools as primary Hindi Teachers all over the

State of Nagaland.

8. Mr. C.T. Jamir, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has

submitted that the Government of Nagaland took up initiative for

setting up of Hindi Teachers Training Institute at Dimapur and ow-

ing to shortage of Hindi teacher in the States invited candidates

possessing Class-8 pass qualification to undergo teachers train-

ing/diploma in Hindi from the aforesaid Institute. Accordingly, all the

petitioners had applied to the said course and had successfully un-

dergone the aforesaid diploma course and thereafter, undergone

one year course from Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra.

9. He submits that the course undergone by the petitioners i.e.,“Hindi

Sikshan Pravin” is equivalent to teachers training certificate/diploma

as same has been acknowledged by the Government of India in its

letter dated 25.11.2003, which is annexed as Annexure-D to the

writ petition. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has

submitted that some of the petitioners have by now served more

than 20 years as primary Hindi teachers and others have completed

WP(C)/246/2023 Page 10

more than 10 years as such teachers and they were all along

treated by the respondent authorities as trained Hindi teachers.

10. However, he submits that, on 04.09.2017 the respondents had is-

sued a press release whereby the petitioners were directed to un-

dergo Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.), though, other

Hindi teachers who were appointed prior to 03.09.2001 were ex-

empted from undergoing such diploma in elementary education.

11. Thereafter, by a Circular dated 15.03.2023, which has been im-

pugned in this writ petition, the respondents directed the petitioners

to submit necessary documents pertaining to their educational

qualification, i.e., for undergraduate Hindi Teachers, Class 10 and

Class 12, both general and Hindi to the concerned DEOs/SDEOs, on

or before 29.03.2023.Subsequently, by another Circular issued on

23

rd

August,2023, the respondent No.3 directed all the untrained

Hindi teachers (diploma certificate holder) serving under the direc-

torate of school education, who are yet to submit their general

qualification certificate, up to class 12 qualified, to submit the same

on or before 26.08.2023, without fail. Both the aforesaid circulars

have been impugned by the petitioners in this petition, as arbitrary,

unreasonable, and illogical, vis-à-vis the present petitioners.

12. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that

the Central Institute of Hindi, Agra, by its letter dated 13.10.2017,

written to the vice-principal of the Government Hindi Institute, Di-

mapur, had clearly communicated that Hindi teachers diploma from

Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra are trained to teach Hindi in Na-

WP(C)/246/2023 Page 11

galand. Under such circumstances, he submits that it was wrong to

treat the petitioners as untrained Hindi teachers. He submits that

the petitioners had filed a representation for revocation of the Circu-

lar dated 23.08.2023. However, the respondents have not paid any

heed to the said representation. Hence, they were compelled to ap-

proach this Court. He submits that when the petitioners have un-

dergone Hindi training from the Central Institute of Hindi, Agra, as

well as from the Government Hindi Training Institute, Dimapur, and

have served as primary teachers for such a long period of time, now

at this stage, they cannot be treated as untrained teachers after

rendering their serving as primary Hindi teacher at the prime of

their life.

13. He submits that some of the colleagues of the present petitioners

who were appointed prior to September 2001, have not been asked

to undergo the diploma in elementary education and have not been

asked to produce their documents of Class 12 and, as such, he

submits that the classifying the present petitioners who are the di-

ploma certificate holder in Hindi as an untrained Hindi teacher is un-

reasonable, discriminatory, and derogatory, hence, the impugned

circulars are liable to be quashed.

14. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that

the present petitioners have undergone the diploma certificate

course in Hindi in Hindi medium language, whereas, the diploma in

elementary education is conducted in English medium language and

the petitioners who do not have proficiency in English language

WP(C)/246/2023 Page 12

cannot be compelled to undergo another diploma, which is taught

in English medium, as same would be irrational and illogical.

15. The learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners has also submit-

ted that the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department

of Secondary and Higher Education of Government of India, by its

letter dated 25.11.2003 (annexed as Annexure-D in the writ peti-

tion) had issued advisory to all the State Government to recognize

the examination conducted by Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra for

the purpose of employment of Hindi teachers and in the said letter

the course of Hindi Sikshan Pravin conducted by the Kendriya Hindi

Sansthan, Agra is shown to be equivalent to teacher training certifi-

cate diploma. However, the State of Nagaland had not complied

with the said advisory and not issued any notification to that effect.

16. The learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners has submitted

that since at the time of appointment of the petitioners as primary

Hindi Teachers the eligibility criteria was Class-8 pass and Diploma

Course in Hindi which all the petitioners possess, it is unreasonable

on the part of respondent authorities to direct them to produce the

certificates of general qualification till Class-12 pass as they don't

possess the said certificate and at this belated stage they also can-

not be expected to undergo 10+2 course after rendering their ser-

vices for such a long period as Hindi teachers.

17. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that

the eligibility criteria of securing 50% marks in Class 12 as well as a

Diploma in Elementary Education has been incorporated in the Na-

WP(C)/246/2023 Page 13

galand School Education Service Rules in the year 2017. As such,

any teacher who has been appointed prior to coming into force of

said Rules may not be regarded as ineligible, if he fails to conform

to the requirements as prescribed by the said rules. He submits that

the said Rules cannot have retrospective effect as rules are made

only to be made effective prospectively. He submits that the peti-

tioners were possessing the eligibility criteria as prescribed by the

State Government in the advertisements by which they were ap-

pointed. He submits that the State Government having utilized the

services of the petitioners and also after having regularized their

services as primary Hindi Teachers cannot impose unreasonable

conditions with an ulterior motive of ultimately dismissing them

from service on this count. He submits that the advertisement

which the State respondent had issued on earlier occasion in re-

sponse to which some of the petitioners had applied and got se-

lected and ultimately, appointed as primary Hindi teachers required

the qualification of only Diploma in Hindi for undergraduate teach-

ers and as such, after having been qualified, appointed and served

for such a long period a new education qualification may not be im-

posed for their continuation in the service as the same would be

unreasonable, arbitrary and illogical. He submits that it would be

violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 14

and 21 of the Constitution of India and as such, he submits that the

impugned circulars are liable to be set aside and quashed.

18. On the other hand, Ms. V. Suokhrie, the learned Additional Advocate

General has submitted that though, initially owing to acute shortage

WP(C)/246/2023 Page 14

of Hindi teachers, some relaxation was given to the petitioners

while engaging them as primary Hindi teachers. However, after en-

actment of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,

2009 all untrained teachers were required to be imparted training

within a period of five years. She submits that in light of provisions

of the said Act, the Central Government had also by notification

dated 31.03.2010 notified the National Council of Teacher Education

(NCTE) as the academic authority for prescribing teachers’ qualifica-

tion.

19. She submits that the NCTE has laid down the requisite teacher

qualification as per its Notification dated 23.08.2010.The Depart-

ment of School Education also introduced the Nagaland School Edu-

cation Service Rules in the year 2017, incorporating the standards

set forth by NCTE. According to the provisions of the Rules, for all

in-service teachers, requirement of obtaining a Diploma in Elemen-

tary Education with minimum eligibility requirement of 50% in class

XII has been prescribed. She Submit that the Central Government

has also written letter on 03.08.2017 to all States including the

State of Nagaland regarding training of untrained teachers and ac-

tion to be taken thereof.

20. She submits that as per the mandate of Nagaland School Education

Service Rules, 2017, which is in terms with the qualification pre-

scribed by NCTE under RTE Act, 2009, the diploma course under-

taken by the petitioner cannot be deemed to be sufficient to qualify

them to be regarded as trained teachers, accordingly, the represen-

WP(C)/246/2023 Page 15

tations submitted by the petitioners were not considered by the

State respondents.

21. She has further submitted that on 15.09.2021, the respondents’ au-

thority (Respondent No. 3) had issued a notification whereby the in-

service Hindi teachers, who were not found eligible to be regarded

as trained Hindi teachers as per the NCTE norms were required to

acquire the requisite academic and professional qualifications as per

the said norms within a period of five years with effect from the

year 2022 to 2027, which may also be done from institutions such

as NIOS and IGNOU. She submits that many of the untrained Hindi

teachers have completed their training or are undergoing such train-

ing in Hindi, however, it is only the present petitioners who have not

done so and have challenged the Circulars dated 15.03.2023 and

23.08.2023.

22. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that as the

future of those students who would be taught by the untrained pri-

mary Hindi teachers are at stake, the teachers are required to pos-

sess minimum prescribed qualification, as prescribed by the statu-

tory authority like NCTE, for continuing as Hindi teachers. She sub-

mits that asking the untrained Hindi teacher to acquire the requisite

minimum qualification for continuing as Hindi teachers can neither

be regarded as unreasonable nor can be considered as motivated

by any ulterior motive.

23. She submits that the course conducted by Central Institute of Hindi,

Agra is not recognized by NCTE nor its syllabus and academic dura-

WP(C)/246/2023 Page 16

tion is fixed as per the norms of NCTE and the same has been ac-

knowledged by the Director of Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra in a

letter dated 11.07.2023 addressed to the Respondent No. 3 (the

said letter is annexed as Annexure-4 in the affidavit-in-opposition

filed by the State Respondent).

24. She further submits that whether the diploma undergone by the

present petitioner can be equated with the Diploma in Elementary

Education as prescribed by the NCTE is a technical question which

can be determined by the Government or statutory bodies on rec-

ommendation of an expert body, than by Court of law, which is un-

informed of relevant data and unaided by technical expertise neces-

sary for the purpose of determining the equivalence. Hence, she

submits that when the institution from where the petitioners have

obtained their diploma course has itself clarified that the diploma

course undergone by them is not equivalent to the Diploma in Ele-

mentary Education as prescribed by NCTE, no further doubt remains

in this matter and she submits that the Court should not, therefore,

delve into this aspect, which requires technical expertise. In support

of her submission, she has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the

case of “Devendra Bhaskar and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Oth-

ers” reported in “2021 SCC online SC 1116.” She, therefore, submits

that the writ petition filed by the present petitioners is liable to be

dismissed.

25. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both sides

and have gone through their respective pleadings supported by affida-

WP(C)/246/2023 Page 17

vits. I have also gone through the ruling cited by the learned counsel

in support of their respective submissions.

26. It appears that the only relief sought for by the petitioners in this writ

petition is for quashing and setting aside of the impugned circular

dated 15.03.2023 and 23.08.2023 issued by Respondent No. 3. No

other relief has been sought for by the petitioners in this case.

27. It is pertinent to mention herein that when the writ petition was listed

for motion before this Court, while issuing notice to the respondents,

this Court, by its order dated to 02.11.2023, had suspended the op-

eration of the impugned circulars so far as petitioners are concerned.

Though, no specific relief has been claimed against the press release

dated 04.09.2017 issued by the respondent No. 3, however, from the

contentions raised by the petitioners in the body of the writ petition as

well as submissions made by learned senior counsel for the petition-

ers, it appears that the petitioners are also agitated with the aforesaid

press release dated 04.09.2017. By the aforesaid press release, those

elementary teachers who were appointed after 03.09.2001 were re-

quired to be enrolled for Diploma in Elementary Education course

through NIOS portal, latest by 25.09.2017.

28. It also appears that by the impugned circular dated 15.03.2023, the

untrained Hindi Teachers (under graduate teachers and graduate

teachers) serving under the Directorate of School Education, Na-

galand, who were appointed after September 2001, were directed to

submit their educational qualification documents from Class 10 and

Class 12 and Hindi. Similarly, the graduate teachers were directed to

produce the document from Class 10 up to BA. The deadline which

WP(C)/246/2023 Page 18

was mentioned for furnishing said document was 06.04.2023. How-

ever, it appears that by the subsequent impugned circular, i.e., the

circular dated 23.08.2023, the deadline for submitting the certificates

up to Class 12 qualified was extended till 26.08.2023.

29. The main contention of the petitioners is that they have undergone

Hindi Diploma Course from Government Hindi Institute, Dimapur and

Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra and that when most of the petitioners

had done the said diploma course, the eligibility criteria for undergoing

such a diploma course was Class 8 pass only, therefore, they had not

passed Class-12 when they did the aforesaid course. It also appears

that the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) which was

authorized in exercise of powers conferred under Section 23 of the

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 to lay

down the curriculum and minimum qualifications for a person to be

eligible for appointment as teacher for class 1 to class 8 of a school

were notified on 23.08.2010, wherein, the requirement of at least

50% marks in higher secondary course and two years Diploma in Ele-

mentary Education was prescribed. It also appears that said eligibility

criteria was also incorporated in the Nagaland School Education Ser-

vice Rules 2017.

30. However, it is not disputed that all the petitioners were appointed be-

fore coming into force of Nagaland School Education Service Rules,

2017. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that

since the Nagaland School Education Service Rules, 2017 which incor-

porated the standards set forth by NCTE regarding minimum eligibility

criteria of 50% in Class 12 as well as a Diploma in Elementary Educa-

tion as a qualification to be appointed as primary teachers may be ef-

WP(C)/246/2023 Page 19

fective only prospectively, i.e., for all such appointments, which are

made after the said rules coming into force. The said submission of

the learned senior counsel for the petitioners appears to have force in

it, as the petitioners were appointed prior to coming into force, of the

Nagaland School Service Education Rules, 2017, the minimum educa-

tion qualification required for appointment as Primary Hindi teachers

cannot be retrospectively applied to the petitioners, who were ap-

pointed much earlier than that and whose services were also regular-

ised and who have rendered sufficient and who have rendered their

services for a long period of time. However, this has been overridden

by the statutory provision in Section 23(2) of the Right of Children to

Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which has not been chal-

lenged by the petitioners and which provides for as follows :-

“(2) Where a State does not have adequate institutions

offering courses or training in teacher education, or

teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid down

under sub-section (1) are not available in sufficient

numbers, the Central Government may, if it deems nec-

essary, by notification, relax the minimum qualifications

required for appointment as a teacher, for such period,

not exceeding five years, as may be specified in that no-

tification:

Provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of

this Act, does not possess minimum qualifications as laid

down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum

qualifications within a period of five years:

[Provided further that every teacher appointed or in po-

sition as on the 31st March, 2015, who does not possess

WP(C)/246/2023 Page 20

minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section

(1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a

period of four years from the date of commencement of

the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education

(Amendment) Act, 2017 (24 of 2017).]”

31. It is also a fact that the diploma course undergone by the petitioners

from Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra, (Central Institute of Hindi, Agra)

cannot be equated with the Diploma in Elementary Education pre-

scribed by the National Council of Teachers Education, as the same is

apparent from the letter dated 11.07.2023 of the Director of Central

Institute of Hindi, Agra written to the Respondent No. 3 and annexed

as Annexure 4 along with the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Re-

spondent No. 1, 2 and 3.

32. Further as held by the Apex Court in a catena of judgment which were

discussed by the Apex Court in the case of “Devendra Bhaskar and

Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others” (Supra), the equivalence of

qualification is a matter for the State as recruiting authority to deter-

mine. The relevant observation of the Apex Court in the aforesaid

judgment are quoted herein below:

“21. In Mohd. Shujat Ali v. Union of India [Mohd.

Shujat Ali v. Union of India, (1975) 3 SCC 76 : 1974

SCC (L&S) 454] , it was held that the question regard-

ing equivalence of educational qualifications is a tech-

nical question based on proper assessment and

evaluation of the relevant academic standards and

practical attainments of such qualifications. It was fur-

ther held that where the decision of the Government

is based on the recommendation of an expert body,

then the Court, uninformed of relevant data and un-

aided by technical insights necessary for the purpose

of determining equivalence, would not lightly disturb

WP(C)/246/2023 Page 21

the decision of the Government unless it is based on

extraneous or irrelevant considerations or actuated

mala fides or is irrational and perverse or manifestly

wrong.

22. In J. Ranga Swamy v. State of A.P. [J. Ranga

Swamy v. State of A.P., (1990) 1 SCC 288: 1990 SCC

(L&S) 76] this Court held that it is not for the court to

consider the relevance of qualification prescribed for

various posts.

23. In State of Rajasthan v. Lata Arun [State of Ra-

jasthan v. Lata Arun, (2002) 6 SCC 252: 2002 SCC

(L&S) 859: 5 SCEC 268] this Court held that the pre-

scribed eligibility qualification for admission to a

course or for recruitment to or promotion in service

are matters to be considered by the appropriate au-

thority. It was held thus: (SCC p. 258, para 13)

“13. From the ratio of the decisions noted above, it is

clear that the prescribed eligibility qualification for

admission to a course or for recruitment to or promo-

tion in service are matters to be considered by the ap-

propriate authority. It is not for courts to decide

whether a particular educational qualification should

or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualifi-

cation prescribed by the authority.”

24. In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar

Katwal [Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar

Katwal, (2009) 1 SCC 610 : 3 SCEC 452] this Court

has reiterated that equivalence is a technical academic

matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision

of the academic body of the university relating to

equivalence should be by a specific order or resolu-

tion, duly published. Dealing specifically with whether

a distance education course was equivalent to the de-

gree of MA (English) of the appellant university

therein, the Court held that no material had been pro-

duced before it to show that the distance education

course had been recognised as such.

25. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz

Ahmad [Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz Ahmad,

WP(C)/246/2023 Page 22

(2019) 2 SCC 404: (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 353] , it was

held that the State, as an employer, is entitled to pre-

scribe qualifications as a condition of eligibility, after

taking into consideration the nature of the job, the ap-

titude required for efficient discharge of duties, func-

tionality of various qualifications, course content lead-

ing up to the acquisition of various qualifications, etc.

Judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the

prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of

the prescribed qualifications with any other given

qualification. Equivalence of qualification is a matter

for the State, as recruiting authority, to determine.”

33. Thus, in the instant case, when the director of Central Institute of

Hindi, Agra has himself clarified by his letter dated 11.07.2023, giving

reasons therein, that the diploma course conducted by the Central In-

stitute of Hindi, Agra has not been recognized by NCTE and nor the

syllabus and academic duration fixed as per the norms of NCTE, there-

fore, same cannot be regarded equivalent to Diploma in Elementary

Education (D.El.Ed.) course is no longer a disputable question.

34. On the basis of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respon-

dent as well as submissions made by learned Additional Advocate

General, it appears that in pursuant to the provisions of Right to Edu-

cation Act 2009, the National Council for Teachers Education was noti-

fied as the academic authority for prescribing teachers qualifications

and in exercise of its powers vested in it by the aforesaid Act, the

NCTE has laid down requisite teachers qualification as per its notifica-

tion dated 23.08.2010.

35. The notification dated 23.08.2010, issued by National Council for

Teachers Education, prescribing minimum qualifications for a person

to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in Class-1 toClass-8 of a

WP(C)/246/2023 Page 23

school referred to in Clause (n) of Section-2 of the Right of Children to

free in Compulsory Education Act, 2009 is quoted herein below:-

1. “Minimum Qualifications.-

(i) Classes I.V

(a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least

50% marks and 2- year Diploma in Elementary Edu-

cation (by whatever name known)

OR

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least

45% marks and 2- year Diploma in Elementary Edu-

cation (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 Edu-

cation (B.EI. Ed.)

OR

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least

50% marks and 2 year Diploma in Education (Spe-

cialEducation)

AND

(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TED)to be

conducted by the appropriate Government in accor-

dance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for

the purpose.

WP(C)/246/2023 Page 24

(ii) Classes VI-VIII

(a)B.A/B.Sc and 2 - year Diploma in Elementary Edu-

cation (by whatever name known)

OR

B.A/B.Sc with at least 50% marks and 1-year Bache-

lor in Education (B.Ed)

OR

B.A/B.Sc with at least 45% marks 1-year Bachelor in

Education (B.Ed). in accordance with the

NCTE(Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations

issued from time to time in this regard.

OR

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least

50% marks and 4 year Bachelor in Elementary Edu-

cation (B.EI. Ed.)

OR

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least

50% marks and 4 year B.A/B.ScEd or B.

A.Ed/BSc.Ed.

OR

B.A/B.Sc with at least 50% marks and 1year B.Ed

(Special Education)

AND

(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be

conducted by the appropriate Cement in accordance

with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the pur-

pose.

2. Diploma/Degree Course in Teacher Education.-

For the purposes of this Notification, a di-

ploma/degree course in teacher education recog-

nized by the National Council for Teacher Deucalion

(NCTE) only shall be considered. However, in case of

Diploma in Education (Special Education) and B. Ed

(Special Education), a course recognised by the Re-

habilitation Council of India (RC) only shall be con-

WP(C)/246/2023 Page 25

sidered

3. Training to be undergone.-A person-

(a) with BA/B.Sc. with at least 5O% marks and B. Ed

qualification shall also be eligible for appointment for

class I to V upto 1st January, 2012, provided he un-

dergoes, after appointment, an NCTE recognized 6-

month special programme in Elementary Education.

(b) with D. Ed (Special Education) or B. Ed (Special

Education) qualification shall undergo, after ap-

pointment an NCTE recognized 6-month special pro-

gramme in Elementary Education.

4. Teacher appointment before the date of

this Notification. The following categories of

teachers appointed for classes I to VIII prior to date

of this Notification need not acquire the minimum

qualifications specified in Para (1) above,:

(a) A teacher appointed on or after the-3" Septem-

ber, 2001 i.e. the date on which the NCTE (Determi-

nation of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of

Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 (as amended

from time to time) came into force, in accordance

with that Regulation.

Provided that a teacher of class I to V possessing B.

Ed qualification, or a teacher possessing B. Ed (Spe-

cial Education) or D. Ed (Special Education) qualifica-

tion shall undergo an NCTE recognized 6 - month

special programme on elementary education.

(b) A teacher of class 1to V with B. Ed qualification

who has completed a 6-month Special basic Teacher

Course (Special BTC) approved by the NCTE;

(c) A teacher appointed before the 3

rd

September

2001, in accordance with the prevalent Recruitment

Rules.

5. Teacher appointed after the date of this Notifica-

tion in certain cases. - Where an appropriate Gov-

ernment or local authority or a school has issued an

WP(C)/246/2023 Page 26

advertisement to initiate the process of appointment

of teachers prior to the date of this Notification, such

appointments may be made in accordance with the

NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for

Recruitment of Teachers in Schools)Regulations,

2001 (as amended from time to time).”

36. On careful perusal of the aforesaid notification, it appears that it pre-

scribes minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appoint-

ment as teacher in Class-1 to Class-8 of a school. In clause No.3 of

the above notification, it also prescribes the period of training to be

undergone for certain category of persons after their appointment. It

also contemplates in clause No. 4, of the said notification regarding

few categories of teachers appointed for Class-1 to 8 prior to the date

of the notification i.e., 23.08.2010.

37. However, in Paragraph No.4 (a) on the above notification, it only

speaks about those category of teachers who are appointed after

03.09.2001, in accordance with the NCTE (determination of minimum

qualification of recruitment of teachers in school) Regulation, 2001,

with a proviso that a teacher of Class-1 to 5 possessing B.Ed, etc. shall

undergo an NCTE recognized in six months special program on ele-

mentary education.

38. Clause-4(B), gives an exemption from possessing minimum qualifica-

tion prescribed by the above notification for a teacher of Class-1 to 5

with B.Ed qualification who has completed six months special basic

teachers course (Special BTC) approved by NCTE. Clause-4(C) of the

above notification provides for an exemption from possessing mini-

WP(C)/246/2023 Page 27

mum qualification to for teacher appointed before 03.09.2001 in ac-

cordance with the prevailing recruitment rules.

39. Clause-5 of the above notification deals with those cases where an

appropriate Government has issued an advertisement to initiate the

process of appointment of teacher prior to date of the aforesaid notifi-

cation i.e., 23.08.2010. Such appointments have to be made in accor-

dance with the NCTE (the determination of minimum qualification for

recruitment of teachers in schools) Regulation, 2001.

40. Thus, it appears that though the foresaid notification dated

23.08.2010 provides for the cases where appointment was made after

03.09.2001 in accordance with NCTE (determination of minimum

qualification of recruitment of teachers in school) Regulation, 2001, as

well as those teachers, who were appointed prior to the said date in

accordance with prevalent rules. However, it does not specifically pro-

vide for as to how to deal with the teachers who though, appointed in

pursuant to an advertisement, however, no recruitment rules were

prevalent at that point of time, and nor the NCTE (determination of

minimum qualification of recruitment of teachers in school) Regula-

tion, 2001, has been adhered to.

41. In the instant case, though, the appointments were made prior to the

notification dated 23.08.2010 issued by the National Council for

Teachers Education prescribing the minimum eligibility criteria for ap-

pointment as teachers of for Class 1 to Class 8, however, the said ap-

pointments were made after coming into force of the NCTE (determi-

nation of minimum qualification for recruitment of teachers in schools)

WP(C)/246/2023 Page 28

Regulation 2001, however, the appointing authorities had not com-

plied with the same.

42. It appears that the aforesaid lapse on the part of the appointing au-

thority (state respondents), after rendering more than 10 years, in

some cases more than 20 years of service, to the state as primary

Hindi teachers, the petitioners may not be penalized as they have

been appointed by the State on the basis of eligibility criteria pre-

scribed by the state respondents at the time of their appointment.

43. However, the question of acquisition of minimum qualification by

those teachers who does not possess the minimum qualification as laid

down by the NCTE has been dealt with by the statute i.e., under Sec-

tion 23 Clause (2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory

Education Act, 2009 which provides that a teacher who at the com-

mencement of this Act does not possess minimum qualification as laid

down under subsection (1) shall acquire such minimum qualification

within a period of 5 years. The said period has been extended by an

amendment to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Educa-

tion Act, 2009.

44. It also appears that State Respondents by its Notification dated

15.09.2021 bearing No. ED/CSS/RLX/1/2021-22has extended the said

date to a further period, by providing that all untrained teachers shall

have to undergo required academic qualification and professional

training within five years’ time frame, that is, with effect from 2022 to

2027. The aforesaid statutory provision contained in the RTE Act,

2009 as well as the notification dated 15.09.2021 has not been chal-

lenged by the petitioners. Hence, same is binding on the petitioners.

WP(C)/246/2023 Page 29

However, the fact remains that the impugned circulars direct the peti-

tioners to produce their educational qualification documents on or be-

fore 06.04.2023, which is prior to the extended time granted by the

State respondents by its notification dated 15.09.2021.Hence, though,

the petitioners in terms of the statutory mandate of RTE Act,2009 are

required to acquire the minimum qualifications within the prescribed

time frame, however, the Notification dated 15.09.2021 has extended

the time for acquisition of required minimum academic qualification to

the year 2027. Before the lapse of said time- frame, the petitioners

may not be compelled to produce their educational qualification

documents. The impugned circular issued by the Respondent No.3 ap-

pears to be contrary to its notification dated 15.09.2021.

45. In view of above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion

that though the petitioners are under the statutory mandate of acquir-

ing the requisite minimum educational qualification as prescribed by

the National Teachers Education Council, however, they have to do so

within the extended timeframe in pursuant to Notification dated

15.09.2021. Compelling the petitioners to produce their educational

documents prior to lapse of the extended period would be contrary to

the Notification dated 15.09.2021. The impugned circulars are, there-

fore, liable to be set aside.

46. In view of the discussions made and reasons stated in the foregoing

paragraphs, the impugned circulars are set aside.

47. This writ petition is accordingly, disposed of.

WP(C)/246/2023 Page 30

48. Registry of the principal seat of the Gauhati High Court is directed to

send this case record immediately the registry of the permanent bench

of Gauhati High Court at Kohima.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant