2025 INSC 451 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No. 12660 OF 2023

SOUMEN PAUL & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

SHRABANI NAYEK & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No. _______ OF 2025

ARISING OUT OF DIARY NO. 25090/2023

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No. 25324 OF 2023

J U D G M E N T

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. The issue involved in this case relates to the appointments to

the post of assistant teachers in primary schools in the State of

West Bengal. This post is governed by the West Bengal Primary

2

School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016,

1 and the qualifications

for appointment to the said post are prescribed in Rule 6 which is

extracted below for ready reference:

“6. Qualifications.— (1) No person shall be appointed by the

Council as a teacher unless he is a citizen of India and has

completed the age of 18 years as on 1st day of January of the

year of advertisement and has not completed the age of 40 years

on the 1st day of January of the year of advertisement as

specified in sub-rule (3).

(2) The candidate shall possess the minimum educational

qualifications specified by the National Council for Teacher

Education and the notification relating to eligibility of candidates

issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development,

Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of

India (hereafter referred to as MHRD), from time to time, read

with the relaxed qualifications issued by that Ministry from time

to time and passed the TET.

(3) In the matter of appointment, priority shall be given to those

eligible candidates who possess the minimum qualifications as

specified by the National Council for Teacher Education and

MHRD and thereafter, the eligible candidates with the relaxed

qualification specified by the MHRD, may be considered and if

candidates with relaxed qualifications are considered as

teachers, such teachers under the relaxed qualification norms

shall be appointed with an undertaking to acquire the minimum

qualifications specified in the National Council for Teacher

Education within a period of 2 years from the date of

appointment.”

3. In this case, we are concerned with sub-rule (2) of Rule 6.

This sub-rule was later amended by a notification dated

22.12.2020 in the following terms:

“(2) The candidate shall possess the minimum educational and

training qualification as prescribed by the National Council for

1

Framed under the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973.

3

Teacher Education prevailing as on date of publication of

recruitment notification.”

4. As is evident from the above, the minimum qualifications

specified in Rule 6 of Recruitment Rules, 2016 will be those that

are prescribed by the National Council for Teachers Education,

2 a

body constituted under the National Council for Teacher

Education Act, 1993

3. In exercise of the power conferred by sub-

section (1) of section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and

Compulsory Education Act, 2009, by notification dated

23.08.2010

4 the NCTE laid down the minimum qualification for a

person to be appointed as a teacher for class I to class VIII. The

qualifications were amended from time to time, and the

qualifications that were prevailing at the time when the

recruitment notification for appointment of assistant teachers

(primary) in the State of West Bengal was issued, were those

prescribed by NCTE in its notification dated 29.07.2011.

5 The

relevant portion of the said prescription is extracted hereinbelow

for ready reference:

“1. Minimum Qualifications:-

(i) Classes I-V

2

Hereinafter referred to as the ‘ NCTE’/‘council’.

3

Hereinafter referred to as the “NCTE Act.

4

F. No. 61-03/20/2010/NCTE(N&S).

5

F. No. 61-1/2011/NCTE(N&S).

4

a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50%

marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by

whatever name known)

OR

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks

and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (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 Education (B.El. Ed.)

OR

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks

and 2-year Diploma in Education (Special Education).

OR

Graduation and two year Diploma in Elementary Education

(by whatever name known).

AND

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

by the appropriate Government in accordance with the

Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.”

5. It is in the above -referred legal regime governing

appointments to the post of assistant teachers that the appellants’

aspiration and endeavour to join the post advertised on

21.10.2022

6 comes up for our consideration. The relevant factual

background is as follows.

6. As the mandatory minimum qualification for the post of

Primary Teacher in the state is a Diploma in Elementary Education

(D.El.Ed.), a two-year course conducted by the West Bengal Board

of Primary Education

7, constituted under the West Bengal Primary

6

There is an issue as to whether this is the notification by which the posts were advertised

or it is the notification dated 29.09.2022, about which we will shortly be clarifying.

7

Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’.

5

Education Act, 1973, the appellants enrolled themselves for the

2020-2022 batch of D.El.Ed. It has always been the practice that

a new batch would commence from the 01

st July of a year and

conclude by the second successive year, which in the present case

would have been 30

th June 2022.

7. The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and problems with

the constitution and functioning of the B oard delayed the 2020-

2022 batch, leading to a situation where the normal and natural

conclusion of the 2022 batch by 30

th June seemed uncertain.

8. The appellants were concerned that they may lose the

opportunity to apply and participate in the recruitment process

that was to commence with the issuance of a notification in

October 2022. With this apprehension and anxiety about the fact

that many of them could cross the age bar if they did not

participate in the upcoming recruitment process, they approached

the Calcutta High Court by filing w rit petition(s) under Article 226,

in which they prayed as under:

"a. Leave dispensing with Rule 26 of the Rules of High Court

Calcutta relating to Applications under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

b. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the

respondents and each one of them particularly the respondent

nos. 2, 3 and 4 to immediately complete the D.El.Ed. course

within the stipulated time.

6

c. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the

respondents authorities and each one of them to immediately

complete the Part-I Examination and declare the results.

d. A Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the

respondents authorities to immediately start Part- II Examination

and declare results of Part II Examination and further provide the

Petitioners with D.EL.Ed. Certificates.

e. A Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the

Respondents authorities and each one of them particularly the

respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 to issue Petitioners with the TET-2014

Pass Certificates.

f. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the

Respondents authorities and each one of them particularly the

respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 not to initiate any selection process

till such time the petitioners get their D.El.Ed. final results and

certificates of 2020-2022 batch.

g. A writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents, to certify and transmit the entire records relating to the case so that

conscionable justice may be administered to petitioners.

h. Rule NISI in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g).

i. An order directing the respondents authorities, particularly the

respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 not to start any selection Process till

such time the results and D.El.Ed. certificates of 2020-2022

batch and TET 2014 certificates are given to the petitioners.

j. An order directing the respondents authorities particularly the

respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 to issue them TET 2014 Pass

Certificates.

k. Ad-interim order in terms of prayer (i) and (j).”

(emphasis supplied)

9. In the meanwhile, to obviate the ineffective functioning of the

Board, the Government constituted an ad-hoc committee, and the

President of the Board took charge on 24.08.2022. Along with the

President, the Deputy Secretary of the Board also took charge on

26.08.2022. After taking charge, the officers took stock of the

situation and realised that the D.El.Ed. batch for the year 2020-

7

2022 was already delayed, and urgent action was required to be

taken. It is evident from the records that Part II session of the 2022

batch ended on 30.06.2022, and the examination for that purpose

(Part I-Theoretical) was conducted between 15.07.2022 and

18.08.2022, which was anyway far beyond 30

th June 2022, i.e.,

the normal conclusion for any D.El.Ed. batch.

10. When the writ petition came up for hearing before the High

Court on 21.09.2022, the learned counsel for the Board sought

time for taking necessary instructions. When the learned s ingle

judge of the High Court again took up the writ petition a week

thereafter, i.e., on 29.09.2022, the counsel appearing on behalf of

the Board, having obtained instructions from the

Government/Board, informed the Court that the results of the

appellants in D.El.Ed. would be declared that very day, i.e.,

29.09.2022, and the digital mark sheets would be sent to the

different institutions. The High Court was also informed that the

candidates, like the appellants, who were TET qualified and who

were pursuing D.El.Ed. course for the Session 2020-22 and had

already qualified in Part-I examination will be given an opportunity

to participate in the recruitment process to be initiated by the

Board under advertisement dated 21.10.2022. In view of the

8

statement made on behalf of the Board and without any further

consideration, the writ petition was allowed and disposed of with

the following directions :

“In this matter I am told by the learned advocate for the West

Bengal Board of Primary Education that today i.e. on 29.09.2022

the result of D.El.Ed. Part - I will be declared and the digital

marksheet will be sent to different institutes. All the persons who

were undergoing that course will get the digital marksheet

tomorrow i.e. 30.09.2022. It has further been stated on

instruction by Mr. Saikat Banerjee, learned advocate for the West

Bengal Board of Primary Education that "TET qualified

candidates who are undergoing D.El.Ed. raining (Session 2020-

2022) and qualified in D.El.Ed. Part-I (Session 2020-2022)

examination will be given opportunity to apply in the recruitment

process to be initiated by the Board.

He has also submitted that this opportunity will be given to all

the persons who are undergoing D.El.Ed. course of the Session

2020-2022.

Therefore, I find that the grievance of the petitioners is

redressed by this stand taken by the Board which is beneficial

to all.

Therefore, the writ application is disposed of as allowed.

The instruction given to Mr. Banerjee via e-mail by the

Secretary of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education is kept

on record.”

11. On 29.09.2022, the date on which the learned single Judge

allowed the w rit petition, the Board issued a notification

8

indicating that the result of the D.El.Ed . Part-I examination held

in the month of July for the Session 2020-22 is published, and in

terms of the said notification, the candidates were allowed to avail

8

No. 233/WBBPE/D.El.Ed./2022 .

9

post-publication review or scrutiny of their performance within the

prescribed time. The publication of the result was also intimated

to the various institutions and the students were permitted to

receive the digital marksheets. The exercise was intended to enable

the appellants/candidates to participate in the recruitment

process. On the same day , i.e. on 29.09.2022, yet another

notification

9 was issued indicating that the B oard is going to

recruit TET-qualified candidates for appointment to the posts of

assistant teachers in the vacancies that may be indicated.

12. The intendment of these notifications is in the clarification

and declaration that candidates like the appellants who were TET

qualified and had undergone D.El.Ed. training and qualified for

the Part- I examination can participate in the recruitment process.

It was also indicated that the recruitment notification and

application form will be made available on the website with effect

from 21.10.2022. As it was contended by the respondents and

accepted by the High Court that this notification dated 29.09.2022

itself is the recruitment notification, in order to contrast it with the

subsequently issued actual recruitment notification dated

9

No.1573/WBBPE/2022 dated 29.09.2022 .

10

21.10.2022, we have reproduced both of them. Notification dated

29.09.2022 is as follows:

“

NOTIFICATION

for

Recruitment of TET qualified trained candidates to the posts of

Assistant Teacher in Govt. Aided/Govt. Sponsored/Junior Basic

Primary Schools

This is to notify for all concerned that the West Bengal Board of

Primary Education is going to recruit TET qualified trained

candidates of West Bengal seeking appointment to the posts of

Assistant Teacher in Govt.Aided / Govt. Sponsored / Junior

Basic Primary Schools against the State-wide position of

vacancy to be declared later on.

The selection and appointment of the candidates shall be made

strictly in terms of West Bengal Primary School Teachers

Recruitment Rules, 2016 (amended upto date).

1. Vacancy and Reservation Criteria: …

2. Scale of Pay: Basic Rs. 28,900/- plus DA as admissible plus

HRA @12% of the basic plus MA as admissible.

3. Qualification

: (a) No person shall be appointed by the

concerned District Primary School Council / Primary School

Council as an Assistant Teacher unless he/she is a citizen of

India and has completed the age of 18 years as on Ist day of

January of the year of advertisement (i.e. 01.01.2022) and has

not completed the age of 40 years on the Ist day of January of

the year of advertisement (i.e. 01.01.2022). Relaxation of age as

per the existing rule of the State Govt. is admissible.

(b) The candidate shall possess the minimum educational and training qualifications as prescribed by the National Council for

Teacher Education prevailing as on date of publication of

recruitment notification.

AND

TET qualified candidates who are undergoing D.EI.Ed./D.Ed.

(Special Education)/B.Ed Training (session-2020.2022) and who

have qualified in D.El.Ed./D.Ed. (Special Education)/B.Ed.

Training Par-I examination (sossion-2020-2022) will be given

opportunity to participate In the recruitment process to be

initiated by the Board.

AND

11

(c) Passed in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), conducted by the

West Bengal Board of Primary Education, in accordance with the

guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.

Relaxation: Candidates belonging to reserved categories viz

candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled

Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classer (OBC-A and OBC-B),

Exempted Categories (EC), Ex-Servicemen and for Physically

Handicapped (PH) candidates, shall be allowed relaxation up to

5% in the qualifying marks.

AND

…

Interview: After prima facie scrutiny of the duly filled application

form submitted by the candidate having NCTE prescribed

qualification and fulfilling the conditions as prescribed in West

Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016

(amended upto date) will be called for the Scrutiny/ Verification

of the testimonials, Viva-voce / Interview and Aptitude Test. (The

eligible candidates will be intimated of their respective venues,

date and time of their Scrutiny/ Verification of the testimonials,

Viva-Voce / Interview and Aptitude Test in due course).

…

5. The Recruitment Notification and the Application Form

will be available in the websites:

www.wbbpe.org.https://wbbprimaryeducation.org. on or

after 21.10. 2022.

6. The steps to be followed for online application (how to apply)

will be available in the aforesaid websites.”

13. Following the above referred notification , the recruitment

notification was in fact issued on 21.10.2022. The Board, in its

submissions before the division bench, contrasted the previous

notification dated 29.09.2022 with the recruitment notification

dated 21.10.2022 and asserted that the latter alone is the

recruitment notification. The recruitment notification dated

21.10.2022 is reproduced for ready reference:

12

“RECRUITMENT NOTIFICATION FOR VACANCY POSITION AND

LAUNCHING OF APPLICATION PORTAL

In continuation of our earlier Notification vide No.

1573/WBBPE/2022 dtd. 29.09.2022 it is hereby notified to all

concerned that online applications for recruitment are invited

from TET qualified trained candidates including the appearing

candidates for the session 2020-2022 in D.El.Ed./ Special D.

Ed./ B. Ed. Courses in compliance with the order of the Hon'ble

High Court, Calcutta, against state-wide vacancies for

appointment to the posts of Assistant Teacher in Govt.

Aided/Govt. Sponsored/Junior Basic Primary Schools, against

11765*(eleven thousand seven hundred sixty five) number of

vacancies.

* 86 (eighty six) number of vacancies will be deducted from the

existing vacancies to comply with the order of the Hon'ble Justice

Abhijit Gangopadhyay passed on 30.08.2022 in respect of WPA

No. 5419 of 2022; order passed on 26.09.2022 in respect of WPA

No. 21683 of 2022; and order passed on 28.09.2022 in respect

of WPA No. 20795 of 2022.

The recruitment of the candidates will be made in accordance

with the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment

Rules, 2016 as amended upto date notified vide No: 605-

SE/EE/P)1OM-6/09/PT.VIII dated 22.12.2020.

Candidates shall apply for the posts against the State-wide

vacancies as stated above. Preference for district shall be taken

at the time of application (subject to ava ilability of appropriate

medium & category wise vacancies).

Application Fees: Payment of online application fees of Rs. 150/-

for General candidates. Rs. 100/- for OBC-A and OBC- B

candidates and Rs. 50/- for SC, ST, PH candidates.

The application form for appointment will be available at online

portal for submission from 16:00 Hrs. (IST) onwards of

21.10.2022 till 24:00 Hrs. (IST) on 14.11.2022 at the following

websites: www.wbbpe.org https://wbbprimaryeducation.org

and click on the link: 'Application for Recruitment-2022.”

14. It is clear from the above -referred notification dated

21.10.2022 that; i) it invites online applications for recruitment to

13

the posts of assistant teachers. ii) It also specifies that TET-

qualified trained candidates, “including the appearing candidates

for the session 2020-22 in D. El. Ed./ Special D. Ed./ B. Ed.

Courses,” will be eligible to participate. iii) It mentions that there

are 11,765 vacancies and further notifies, iv) that the recruitment

shall take place under the Recruitment Rules, 2016. With this

analysis, there cannot be any doubt about 21.10.2022 being the

recruitment notification. This controversy must end here.

15. The appellants applied as per the recruitment notification

dated 21.10.2022, obtained their course completion certificates on

29.11.2022, and the final results for Part II of the examination

were also declared on 30.12.2022. Interviews commenced in

December 2022, and the process was moving towards completion.

At this stage, questioning the legality of the order passed by the

single Judge, the private respondents, who pre-possessed D.El.Ed.

qualification, as on the date of recruitment notification dated

29.09.2022 filed Writ Appeal(s) before the d ivision bench of the

High Court contending that the appellants are ineligible and their

candidature must be rejected. Their primary contention was that

the appellants did not possess the minimum qualification as of the

date of recruitment notification and that the Board could not have

14

relaxed the recruitment rules permitting the appellants to

participate in the recruitment process.

16. The division bench of the High Court, by its order dated

27.02.2023, asked the B oard to file an affidavit indicating the

circumstances in which the recruitment process was initiated as

well as the steps taken by the B oard in conducting the 2020- 2022

D.El.Ed. course. In compliance with the High Court’s order, the

Board filed an affidavit, the relevant portion of the affidavit is as

follows:

"4. Before I proceed to deal with the different paragraphs of the

'said application', I consider it necessary to plead as follows:

A) The core controversy in the present lis is as to whether the

West Bengal Board of Primary Education [hereafter WBBPE] by

permitting candidates {who were yet to clear their Part II

examination conducted by WBBPE} to participate in the 2022

recruitment process committed any illegality.

B) Notification dated 29/07/2011 [Page 84 of the 'said

application’] issued by NCTE, considered by the answering

respondents to be relevant is inter alia extracted infra:

1. Minimum Qualifications:-

(i) Classes I-V

a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50%

marks and 2 years Diploma in Elementary Education (by

whatever name known)

OR

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks

and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (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 Education (B.El.Ed.)

15

OR

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks

and 2 year Diploma in Education (Special Education)

OR

Graduation and two year Diploma in Elementary Education

(by whatever name known)

C) The aforesaid notification dated 29/07/2011 lays down the

minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment

as a teacher. The notification never stipulates any date of

eligibility. In other words, on and from which date such eligibility

is to be counted and/or assessed is not specified in the

notification. It can be the first day of January of the year of

recruitment; it can be on the date of recruitment notification or it

can be the date on which the candidate is evaluated. At the cost

of prolixity it is stated that no fixed date of considering the

eligibility is evident from the aforesaid notification of NCTE.

D) An intending candidate upon clearing his 10+2 Board

Examination is eligible for being admitted in D.El.Ed course.

Since the +2 Board Exam results are normally published within

15th June of each calendar year, the two year D.El.Ed course

has its session from Ist July to 30th June for the two successive

years thereafter. The examining body in West Bengal for such

D.El.Ed course is WBBPE. The present ad hoc committee of

WBBPE headed by the President of the Board took charge on

24/08/2022. This deponent took charge as the Deputy Secretary

of WBBPE on 26/08/2022. The office bearers of WBBPE noticed

that for the session 2020-2022, the Part I examination was held

by WBBPE after the Part II session ended on 30/06/2022,

between 15/07/2022 and 18/08/2022. WBBPE published the

results of Part I D.El.Ed course vide notification no. 233/

WBBPE/D.El. Ed./2022 dated 29.09.2022. A copy of such

notification is annexed hereto and marked with the letter 'R-1'.

E) WBBPE immediately thereafter in November, 2022 conducted

the Part II examination for the 2020-2022 session; results

whereof were published vide notification no.

325/WBBPE/D.EL.Ed./ 2022 dated 30/12/2022. A copy of

such notification is annexed hereto and marked with the letter

'R-2'.

F) At Page 73 of the ‘said application' is a notification dated

29/09/2022 issued by WBBPE. Clause 5 of such notification

reads thus: "The Recruitment Notification and the Application

Form will be available in the websites: www.wbbpe.org

https://wbbprimaryeducation.org on or after 21.10.2022."

G) In view of the above, the notification dated 29/09/2022

cannot at all be termed as the 2022 recruitment notification. It is

rather an introduction to the recruitment notification which was

16

published 21/10/2022. A recruitment notification must contain

the number of vacancies which are intended to be filled up by the

examining/ recommending body. The notification appearing at

Page 73 of the 'said application' do not contain the number of

vacancies.

H) Rule 8(3) Table A of the West Bengal Primary School Teachers

Recruitment Rules, 2016 is extracted infra:

Table A

Sl.

No.

Item for evaluation Maximum

Marks

(i) Madhyamik pass under the West

Bengal Board of Secondary

Education or its equivalent.

05

(ii) Higher Secondary pass under the

West Bengal Council of Higher

Secondary Education or its

equivalent.

10

(iii) Training as specified by NCTE 15

(iv) Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) 05

(v) Extra Curricular Activities 05

(vi) Viva Voce or Interview 05

(vii) Aptitude Test 05

Total 50

I) Vide memo no. 2235/ WBBPE/2022 dated 21/12/2022, the

Board notified that it is going to conduct the first phase of

interview/viva voce and aptitude test centrally under its direct

supervision and monitoring. A copy of such notification without

its enclosure is annexed hereto and marked with the letter 'R-3'

J) The concluding paragraph of the said notification reads thus:

"In order to dissipate any confusion/ambiguity, the

examining/recommending body, being the Board makes it

abundantly clear that the State Wide Merit List, for the 2022

Recruitment process will only be published after

assessing/evaluating every benchmark contained in the

recruitment rules."

K) Thus the Board at present is only conducting the viva voce or

interview and the aptitude test of the applicant/candidates for

the 2022 recruitment process. It is yet to allot marks for the

remaining six benchmarks, which includes marks for training. In

other words, the time to allot marks for D.El.Ed. (Training

qualification) is yet to arrive. Marks for Madhyamik and Higher

Secondary cannot be given at this juncture in view of pendency

of the Maitra Committee's report which is to be submitted before

17

this Hon'ble Court in WPA 23585/2022 [Saikat Nandi & Ors. Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.].”

17. Finally, by the order impugned before us, the division bench

of the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the

single Judge. The solitary factor that impressed the High Court is

simply that, as Rule 6(2) of the Recruitment Rules 2016, as

amended on 22.12.2020, unambiguously specified the eligibility

qualification required as on the date of advertisement, candidates

must possess the eligibility qualifications as of the date of the

advertisement, i.e., 29.09.2022. Firstly, the High Court treated the

date of notification dated 29.09.2022, instead of recruitment

notification dated 21.10.2022, as the recruitment notification and

secondly, it construed the rule to have prescribed a cut-off date for

qualification. In this view of the matter, the division bench

proceeded to set aside the latter part of clause (3b) of the

notification dated 29.09.2022 enabling candidates like the

appellants to participate in the selection process, virtually holding

all the appellants ineligible for even participating in the selection

process. The relevant portion of the High Court order is as under:

“…Having heard the parties and considering the materials

placed, this Court is of the clear view that the Board cannot travel

beyond its own Recruitment Rules. Apropos the above

discussion, the 2016 Recruitment Rules as amended by the

Notification dated 22nd December, 2020 (supra) unambiguously

18

specifies the eligibility qualification required as on the date of the

advertisement. The nature of such qualification is also specified

by the NCTE Notification dated 23rd August, 2010.

This Court further notices that the law is settled on the point,

which stands also discussed above, that the eligibility

qualifications must be possessed by any candidate on the date

of the Recruitment Notification. It is undisputed that the private

Respondents in MAT 1725 of 2022 and MAT 1837 of 2022

acquired the minimum eligibility condition of D.El.Ed on 29th

November, 2022, i.e. much after the publication of the

Recruitment Notification on 29th September, 2022. In view of

such position the Board could not have created room for the

Private Respondents/the Writ Petitioners to apply without

possessing the eligibility qualification as on the date of the

advertisement.

This Court also finds the argument of the Board in its affidavit

(supra) that the Notification dated the 29th of September, 2022

is not the Recruitment Notification inasmuch as it did not contain

the number of vacancies to be filled up, to be fallacious.

This Court finds the argument of the Board to be equally

fallacious that the Notification dated 29

th

September, 2022 was

a preparatory exercise to the actual Recruitment Notification

dated 21st October, 2022 which carried the number of vacancies

to be filled up.

The above arguments of the Board are self-defeating

inasmuch as this Court finds that the Board always intended to

act upon the Notification dated 29

th

September, 2022 which

carried the eligibility for the writ petitioners who were not D.El.Ed

qualified to apply. The argument of the Board cannot be also

sustained since, even as on 21st October, 2022 described by the

Board as the proper Recruitment Notification, the writ petitioners

were not D.El.Ed qualified candidates.

Accordingly, the appeals succeed.

The Orders impugned of the Hon'ble Single Bench stand set

aside.”

18. Challenging the judgment and order passed by the division

bench, appellants filed the present civil appeals. We heard Mr. P.

S. Patwalia, Mr. Rauf Rahim, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Ld. Sr.

Counsels for the appellant(s). We also heard Mr. Jaideep Gupta,

19

assisted by Mr. Kunal Chatterjee for the Board and Mr. Subir

Sanyal, Mr. Biswajit Deb, Ld. Sr. Counsels for the respondent(s),

Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Ld. Sr. Counsel assisted by other Ld.

counsels appeared for NIOS (distance education) candidates who

have pursued the D.El.Ed. d egree through open/distance learning

and have filed intervention applications before this Court seeking

directions that they may also be allowed to participate in the

recruitment process at par with the other D.El.Ed. degree holder

candidates. We may mention at this very stage that we have

informed all the learned counsels appearing for the persons who

have filed impleadment petitions that we will not be entertaining

these applications, but would allow them to withdraw and avail

such remedies as may be available to them.

19. Re: Interpretation of Rule 6(2) of the West Bengal School

Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016: NCTE is the statutory regulator

for teacher education.

10 In exercise of its powers under Section 32

of the NCTE Act, it makes regulations specifying norms, standards

and guidelines, inter alia prescribing minimum qualifications and

10

National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 “An Act to provide for the establishment

of a National Council for Teacher Education with a view to achieving planned and co-ordinated

development of the teacher education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper

maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system [including qualifications

of school teachers] and for matters connected therewith”.

20

one such exercise is the prescription of minimum qualifications for

teachers under notification dated 29.07.2011. The West Bengal

School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016, by itself does not

prescribe the minimum educational qualifications for teachers.

Instead, through Rule 6 of the Recruitment Rules 2016 it

incorporates the minimum qualifications as prescribed by NCTE

from time to time. Rule 6(2) of the Recruitment Rules 2016 is

intended to incorporate NCTE qualification that is relevant as on

the date of recruitment, and as such, the provision had to be

worded flexibly to accommodate changes that may be brought

about by the NCTE from time to time. In order to ensure a seamless

adaptation of amendments, modifications, or variations prescribed

by NCTE from time to time, the Rule adopts the standard legislative

device of simply incorporating and referring to the minimum

qualifications as prescribed by NCTE. Further, to ensure that the

latest prescription of NCTE should be made applicable for any

recruitment, the rule also provides that the qualifications

prescribed by NCTE, “prevailing as on the date of publication of

recruitment notification,” must be possessed by the candidate.

20. The intendment of Rule 6(2) of the R ecruitment Rules 2016

is only to declare that the qualifications as prescribed by NCTE

21

and that are prevailing on the date of publication of the

recruitment notification should be possessed by the candidate.

The purpose and object of the rule is not at all to declare a cut -off

date for obtaining the qualifications. We are in complete agreement

with the clear stand taken by the Board in its affidavit filed before

the division bench of the High Court, in which the Board clarified

the position as under:

“C) The aforesaid notification dated 29/07/2011 lays down the

minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment

as a teacher. The notification never stipulates any date of eligibility.

In other words, on and from which date such eligibility is to be

counted and/or assessed is not specified in the notification. It can

be the first day of January of the year of recruitment; it can be on

the date of recruitment notification or it can be the date on which

the candidate is evaluated. At the cost of prolixity it is stated that

no fixed date of conside

ring the eligibility is evident from the

aforesaid notification of NCTE

.”

21. Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the opinion

that the High Court committed a mistake in interpreting and

construing Rule 6(2) as a provision prescribing some kind of a cut-

off date by which time the minimum educational qualifications

must be possessed. This reasoning is contrary to the text of the

rule, it is also contrary to the clear and unambiguous stand of the

Board. The interpretation of Rule 6(2) adopted by the division

bench is incorrect and the judgment on this issue is hereby set

aside.

22

22. Re: The principle as regards the date by which the

candidates for selection must possess the qualifications, as per the

precedents of this Court. We must also deal with the argument of

Mr. Subir Sanyal, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent that, as per the principles of law laid down by this

Court that if the recruitment rule or the notification does not

provide a date by which the minimum qualification s must be

possessed, the relevant date shall be the last date for receipt of the

applications. He relied on the judgment of this Court in

Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab

11 formulating certain

principles for determining the date by which c andidates must

possess eligible qualifications.

23. The issue regarding the date by which candidates for selection

must possess the minimum qualifications prescribed for

recruitment is no more res-integra. Apart from the decision of this

Court in Bhupinderpal Singh (supra) referred to by Mr. Sanyal,

there are many other precedents, which were referred to and

considered in a later decision of this Court in Rakesh Kumar

11

(2000) 5 SCC 262.

23

Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)

12. The relevant portion of the

order is as follows;

“11. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition that

the selection process commences on the date when applications

are invited. Any person eligible on the last date of submission of

the application has a right to be considered against the said

vacancy provided he fulfils the requisite qualification.

12. In U.P. Public Service Commission v. Alpana

13

, this Court,

after considering a large number of its earlier judgments, held

that eligibility conditions should be examined as on the last date

for receipt of applications by the Commission. That too was a

case where the result of a candidate was declared subsequent

to the last date of submission of the applications. This Court held

that as the result does not relate back to the date of examination

and eligibility of the candidate is to be considered on the last

date of submission of applications, therefore, a candidate, whose

result has not been declared up to the last date of submission of

applications, would not be eligible.

13. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in M.V. Nair v. Union of

India

14

held as under

“9. … It is well settled that suitability and eligibility have to be

considered with reference to the last date for receiving the

applications, unless, of course, the notification calling for

applications itself specifies such a date.”

14. In Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions,

15

this Court held:

“2. … It is to be seen that when the recruitment is sought to be

made, the last date has been fixed for receipt of the applications.

Such of those candidates, who possessed of all the qualifications

as on that date, alone are eligible to apply for and to be

considered for recruitment according to the rules.”

15. This Court in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of

Rajasthan

16

held:

“10. The contention that the required qualifications of the

candidates should be examined with reference to the date of

selection and not with reference to the last date for making

applications has only to be stated to be rejected. The date of

12

(2013) 11 SCC 58

13

(1994) 2 SCC 723.

14

(1993) 2 SCC 429.

15

1995 Supp (4) SCC 706.

16

1993 Supp (3) SCC 168.

24

selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of

such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be

unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in

question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications.

Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to

which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date

is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the

candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in

praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The

uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence

viz. even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in

praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future

date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of

applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it

may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection

may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants

and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed

date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting

applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications

should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the

qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. …

Reference in this connection may also be made to two recent

decisions of this Court in A.P. Public Service Commission v. B.

Sarat Chandra

17

and Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential

School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi

18

.”

16. In Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekher

19

, the majority

view was as under:

“15. The fact is that the appellants did pass the examination and

were fully qualified for being selected prior to the date of

interview. By allowing the appellants to sit for the interview and

by their selection on the basis of their comparative merits, the

recruiting authority was able to get the best talents available. It

was certainly in the public interest that the interview was made

as broad based as was possible on the basis of qualification. The

reasoning of the learned Single Judge was thus based on sound

principle with reference to comparatively superior merits. It was

in the public interest that better candidates who were fully

qualified on the dates of selection were not rejected,

notwithstanding that the results of the examination in which

they had appeared had been delayed for no fault of theirs.

The appellants were fully qualified on the dates of the

interview and taking into account the generally followed

principle of Rule 37 in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, we are of

17

(1990) 2 SCC 669.

18

(1990) 3 SCC 655.

19

1993 Supp (2) SCC 611.

25

opinion that the technical view adopted by the learned Judges of

the Division Bench was incorrect….”

However, the opinion of R.M. Sahai, J. had been that these 33

persons could not have been allowed to appear for the interview

as they did not possess the requisite eligibility/qualification on

the last date of submission of applications.

17. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar

Sharma v. Chander Shekhar

20

reconsidered and explained the

judgment of Ashok Kumar Sharma (1993) observing:

“6. The proposition that where applications are called for

prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the

applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be

judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well-

established one. A person who acquires the prescribed

qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be

considered at all. An advertisement or notification

issued/published calling for applications constitutes a

representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound

by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason

behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who

obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before

the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the

interview, other similarly placed persons could also have

applied. Just because some of the persons had applied

notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed

qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been

treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have

been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is

indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the

majority judgment.”

The Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma (1997) 4 SCC 18 further

explained that the majority view in Ashok Kumar Sharma

(1993) was not correct, rather the dissenting view by R.M. Sahai,

J. was correct as the Court held as under:

“6. … The reasoning in the majority opinion that by allowing the

33 respondents to appear for the interview, the recruiting

authority was able to get the best talent available and that such

course was in furtherance of public interest is, with respect, an

impermissible justification. It is, in our considered opinion, a clear

error of law and an error apparent on the face of the record. In

our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High

20

(1997) 4 SCC 18.

26

Court) was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not

have been allowed to appear for the interview.”

(emphasis supplied)

24. The law on the subject was also considered by the recent

Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Tej

Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court .

21 Delivering the

judgment of the Court, Justice Manoj Misra (one of us) succinctly

explained the legal position as follows:

14. In various judicial pronouncements, the law governing

recruitment to public services has been colloquially termed as

“the rules of the game”. The “game” is the process of selection

and appointment. Courts have consistently frowned upon

tinkering with the rules of the game once the recruitment process

commences. This has crystallised into an oft-quoted legal phrase

that “the rules of the game must not be changed midway, or after

the game has been played”. Broadly speaking these rules fall in

two categories. One which prescribes the eligibility criteria (i.e.

essential qualifications) of the candidates seeking employment;

and the other which stipulates the method and manner of making

the selection from amongst the eligible candidates.

15. Cut-off date with reference to which eligibility has to be

determined is the date appointed by the relevant service rules;

where no such cut-off date is provided in the rules, then it will be

the date appointed in the advertisement inviting applications;

and if there is no such date appointed, then eligibility criteria

shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which

the applications were to be received.

22

25. Re: Application of the interpretation and these precedents to

the facts of the present case. We have already held that Rule 6(2) of

the Recruitment Rules, 2016 does not prescribe a date by which

21

(2025) 2 SCC 1.

22

Placing reliance on Shankar K. Mandal v. State of Bihar, (2003) 9 SCC 519.

27

minimum qualifications must be possessed. We have also upheld

the stand of the Board in this regard. It is in this context that we

must now consider the legality and validity of the recruitment

notification dated 21.10.2022. The need for a close scrutiny of the

recruitment notification is also to ensure that it is in consonance

with the law laid down by this Court.

26. Even as per the decisions of this Court in Bhupinderpal

Singh (supra), the candidate seeking public employment must

satisfy his eligibility requirements in terms of the date appointed

by the relevant service rules and, “if there is no cut- off date

appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the

purpose of advertisement calling for applications” . Further, if there

is no such date appointed then eligibility criteria shall be with

reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have

to be received.

27. The recruitment advertisement dated 21.10.2022, issued in

continuation of the previous notification dated 29.09.2022 invited

applications from TET qualified candidates, “including the

appearing candidates for the session 2020 in D.El.Ed./Special D.

Ed./ B. Ed. Courses in compliance with the order of the Hon'ble High

Court of Calcutta against state-wise vacancies for appointments” . A

28

recruitment notification occupies an important position in the

recruitment process and this is for the reasons that the candidates

participating in the selection process must be informed of the rules

and regulations that would apply for considering the eligibility of

the participants. It is an important principle of transparency,

intended to prevent illegality and arbitrariness in executive action.

As indicated hereinabove, the advertisement itself specified that

candidates such as the appellants will be entitled to apply and their

candidature will be considered.

28. An important feature of this case is that the appellants were

aggrieved by the inordinate delay in the conduct and completion of

the D.El.Ed. course for the session 2020-22, which was to be

concluded by 30.06.2022. They invoked the jurisdiction of the High

Court with a prayer for immediate declaration of their results in

D.El.Ed., or in alternative, to direct the State Government not to

initiate the recruitment process pending declaration of their

results. The writ petition was filed by them at the earliest occasion,

i.e. on 22.08.2022, i.e. without any delay. The learned s ingle Judge

of the High Court did not take up the writ petition on merits. Had

the learned Judge dealt with the writ petition on merits, one of the

reliefs, as prayed by the appellants could have been granted i.e.,

29

either that the results would have been directed to be declared

immediately or that the recruitments would have been postponed .

Instead, the learned s ingle Judge disposed of the writ petition on

the basis of the submission made on behalf of the B oard proposing

an equitable solution for resolution of the disputes. On the basis of

the submission of the B oard, the High Court permitted candidates

such as the appellants to be given an opportunity to participate in

the recruitment process. The learned single Judge of the High

Court was not compromising on the standard prescribed for

appointment. It is nobody’s case that unqualified persons will be

appointed. The direction of the learned Single Judge enabled

candidates such as the appellant who were at the verge of

completing the course to participate in the selection process, and

they would have been appointed only upon attaining the prescribed

qualifications.

29. The appellants who applied as per the recruitment

notification dated 21.10.2022 obtained their course completion

certificates by 29.11.2022 and their final results were declared on

30.12.2022. The interviews commenced in December 2022, and

when the process was to be taken to its logical end, the division

bench passed the impugned order, setting aside the direction of the

30

learned Single Judge by interpreting the 6(2) of the Recruitment

Rules 2016 as if it prescribes a cut-off date for eligibility.

30. The facts of this case reveal a rather extraordinary situation

where the Board and also the High Court (Single Judge) sought to

resolve the problem that had arisen due to late conduct of the

2020-22 of D.El.Ed. examination immediately after the Covid-19

pandemic. We are of the opinion that there is no illegality and

arbitrariness in the actual recruitment notification dated

21.10.2022 and that the recruitment process commenced under

the relevant rules and also as per the directions of the single Judge

of the High Court disposing of the writ petition. It is important to

note that the recruitment notification dated 21.10.2022 was not

challenged by anyone.

31. The principles laid down by this Court in Bhupinderpal

Singh (supra) and the subsequent decisions as referred to in

Rakesh Kumar Sharma (supra) and also that of the Constitution

Bench in Tej Prakash (supra) hold that the qualifications must

be possessed as per those prescribed in the rules or the notification

and in the absence of both, by reference to the last date appointed

for receiving the applications. The recruitment notification dated

21.10.2022 indicated that the appellants’ will be given an

31

opportunity, and that intendment must inure to their benefit.

Under similar circumstances in Bhupinder pal Singh (supra), this

Court exercised its power and jurisdiction under Article 142 of the

Constitution to validate and legitimise the recruitment process.

The relevant portion of the judgment in Bhupinderpal Singh

(supra) is as follows:

“13. ……. (i) that the cut-off date by reference to which the

eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking

a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service

rules and if there be no cut-off date appointed by the rules then

such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the

advertisement calling for applications; (ii) that if there be no such

date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by

reference to the last date appointed by which the applications

have to be received by the competent authority. The view taken

by the High Court is supported by several decisions of this Court

and is therefore well settled and hence cannot be found fault

with. However, there are certain special features of this case

which need to be taken care of and justice be done by invoking

the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution vested in

this Court so as to advance the cause of justice.”

(emphasis supplied)

32. Apart from our reasoning that the recruitment notification

dated 21.10.2022 is legal and valid also, we have no hesitation in

exercising our power and jurisdiction under Article 142 of the

Constitution to do complete justice for the parties.

33. In view of the above, we allow the appeals and set aside the

judgment of the division bench in M.A.T. No. 1725 of 2022 dated

11.04.2023 and we direct that the recruitment process which

32

commenced in the notification dated 21.10.2022 must proceed

further and the B oard must take immediate steps for concluding

the recruitment process as expeditiously as possible.

34. Our consideration was confined to examine the legality and

validity of the judgment and order passed by the d ivision bench of

the High Court. All applications for impleadment are dismissed as

withdrawn. The applicants are permitted to avail such remedies as

are available to them in law. If remedies are invoked, their prayers

will be considered and disposed of by the respective courts or

tribunals on their own merits.

35. Pending applications, including the applications for

intervention/impleadment, are disposed of accordingly.

………………………………....J.

[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]

………………………………....J.

[MANOJ MISRA ]

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 04, 2025.