‘Could not have departed from NCTE Notification’; Punjab and Haryana HC directs appointment of Junior Basic Teachers unjustly declared ineligible despite qualification

Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a batch of civil writ petitions filed by the Union Territory of Chandigarh against the impugned orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘CAT’) whereby it allowed the original applications (‘OAs’) filed by the respondent candidates and directed Chandigarh Administration (‘the Administration’) to consider their candidature recruitment as Junior Basic Teachers (‘JBT’), the Division Bench of Sanjeev Prakash Sharma* and Meenakshi I. Mehta, JJ., rejected the petitions, holding that it was incumbent on the Administration to adopt and frame their Rules in conformity with the National Council for Teacher Education (‘NCTE’) Notification and a departure could not have been made by excluding Bachelor of Elementary Education (‘B. El. Ed.’) as a qualification equivalent to Diploma in Elementary Education (‘D. El. Ed.’).

Background

In 2024, an advertisement was issued by the Chandigarh Administration inviting applications for the posts of JBTs and the essential qualifications as per the Chandigarh Education Service (Group-C) Recruitment Rules, 1991 (‘the Recruitment Rules’) were:

1. Graduate or its equivalent from a recognised University, and

2. El. Ed (By whatever name known) of not less than 2 years duration recognised by NCTE,

   OR

   Graduation with at least 50% marks and Bachelor of Education (‘B. Ed’)

3. Pass in Central Teacher Eligibility Test conducted per the Guidelines framed by NCTE.

The candidates cleared the written test that was conducted by the Administration but were declared ineligible on the ground that though they possessed the qualification of B. El. Ed. they did not possess the two-year D. El. Ed. as required under the advertisement.

When the opportunity was granted to them to submit their clarification in this regard, they submitted that the qualification of B. El. Ed. was duly recognised by the NCTE. However, finding that they did not meet the requirements of the advertisement or the Recruitment Rules, the candidates were declared ineligible.

Aggrieved, the candidates preferred the OAs before the CAT, and the impugned orders were passed therein. Hence, the present petitions were filed.

Analysis

The Court noted that initially, the post of JBT required a candidate to possess a Matriculation with a JBT certificate. However, after the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (‘NCTE Act’) came into force, the qualifications required for filling up the post had to align with the NCTE Act. Thus, several amendments were made to the Recruitment Rules from time to time.

The Court referred to Devesh Sharma v. Union of India (2023) 18 SCC 339, wherein the advertisement issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, excluded B. Ed. degree holders from the list of eligible candidates for participating in the RTET Level-1 exam was challenged. Another batch of petitioners holding D. El. Ed. challenged the inclusion of B. Ed. qualified candidates for the post of teachers at the primary level. The Supreme Court distinguished the requirement in imparting education to primary level students, secondary and higher secondary level students, and held that there was no occasion for the inclusion of B.Ed. candidates for primary classes. In Devesh Sharma (supra), Section 12A of the NCTE Act was examined by the Supreme Court along with Section 29 of the NCTE Act and 23 of the Right to Education Act, 2009 (‘RTE Act’) and held that the NCTE is bound to follow the directions of the Central Government. The Court rejected the reliance of the Administration on Devesh Sharma (supra) as wholly misconceived as its facts were completely different from the present cases.

Further, the Court referred to Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of U.P. (2013) 2 SCC 617, wherein the Supreme Court, while considering the requirement of establishment of NCTE, noticed the need for a council to maintain higher standards of education in teachers training and held that the necessity of recognition of courses by any institution/ NCTE was essential. Thus, recognition of courses was held to be in the exclusive domain of the NCTE.

The Court noted that in 2010, vide a notification (‘the Notification’) issued by the NCTE, the minimum qualifications for teachers who would teach Class I to V were declared as follows:

1. Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50 percent marks and a 2-year D. El. Ed. (by whatever name known)

   OR

   Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45 percent 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 percent and 4-year B. El. Ed.

   OR

   Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50 percent and 2-year D. El. Ed. (Special Education)

   AND

2. Pass the Teacher Eligibility Test (‘TET’), to be conducted by the appropriate Government per the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.

The Court further noted that the Notification also provided that in cases where an appropriate Government, local authority, or a school had issued an advertisement to initiate the process of appointment of teachers before the date of the Notification, such appointments may be made under the NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualification for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001.

Thus, the Court stated that it was incumbent on the Administration to adopt and frame their Rules in conformity with the Notification in terms of the RTE Act, and a departure could not have been made while issuing the advertisement.

The Court held that the essential thing was that a candidate must possess knowledge in Elementary Education. Two different qualifications were allowed for the said purpose, i.e., D. El. Ed. or B. El. Ed by NCTE. After coming into force of the aforesaid Notification, the State and UT Authorities needed to frame their Rules in conformity with the RTE Act and NCTE Act. Default on the part of the Chandigarh Administration cannot give any advantage to a particular individual.

The Court stated that in the present case, it was apparent that Chandigarh Administration, though in the subsequently issued Draft Rules, which were yet to be notified, incorporated the qualification of B. El. Ed. Thus, to maintain uniformity and remove the ambiguity, the Court held that it must read down the advertisement to include B. El. Ed apart from D. El. Ed. to be an equal qualification for appointment as a JBT. The Court further remarked that it must always attempt to harmonize the provisions of the law to save the selections that have already been conducted, like the present case wherein the candidates already participated in the selection process and were placed on the merit list.

Accordingly, the Court affirmed the impugned orders passed by the CAT and rejected the present petitions. The Court also directed that the candidates shall be considered in terms of the CAT’s directions, and the exercise for the consideration of their appointment shall be completed in two months.

[Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Sakshi Malik, CWP No. 1922 of 2025 (O&M), decided on 07-05-2025]

*Judgment authored by: Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For the petitioner: Additional Standing Counsel of Chandigarh Madhu Dayal and Junior Panel Counsel of Chandigarh Shubreet Kaur

For the respondent: Rakesh Sobti and Parunjeet Singh