CASE NAME: KOUSHIK DAS & ORS Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL &ORS
CASE NO.: Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 19139 of 2024)
DATE: April 4, 2025
QUOROM: J. B.R Gavai and J. Augustine George Masih
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) prescribed the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) as the sole authority that is responsible for prescribing minimum qualifications for teachers who are eligible to apply for positions in the government schools. In the year 2014, NCTE prescribed regulations which specifically demanded a two-year D.El.Ed. degree to teach classes I through VIII. Further, NCTE informed all the registered teachers trained and untrained are mandated to finish the prescribed degree which is D.El.Ed. The same was conveyed through a letter on August 3, 2017 that the minimum qualifications shall be obtained by March 31, 2019. This directive was later formalised through an amendment to the RTE Act on August 10, 2017. Further, to facilitate in-service teachers, NCTE issued a Recognition Order on September 22, 2017, which reduced duration of D.El.Ed. from two years to 18 months. The National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) also approved the same and decided to conduct this shortened program through an open and distance learning mode.
The appellants, who were in-service teachers as of August 10, 2017, completed the recognized 18-month D.El.Ed. through NIOS before the March 31, 2019 deadline. However, when the West Bengal Board of Primary Education issued a recruitment notification on September 29, 2022, a petition was filed against them, claiming that those with an 18-month D.El.Ed. should not be considered equivalent to those with two-year programs. The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta directed that a teacher with an 18-month D.El.Ed. through NIOS should not be recruited, and the Division Bench dismissed the appeal against this order.
ISSUES INVOLVED
- Whether the 18-month D.El.Ed. program through NIOS is equivalent to the two-year D.El.Ed. program for recruitment purposes?
- Whether teachers who were in-service as of August 10, 2017, and completed the 18-month D.El.Ed. through NIOS before March 31, 2019, are eligible for appointment to teaching positions?
LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED
Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, Article 136 of the Indian constitution.
APPELLANT CONTENTIONS
The appellant made a two-fold submission to prove that the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta has misinterpreted the judgement delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaiveer V State of Uttarakhand,
- Firstly, the appellant submitted that the facts, observations and the judgements when examined closely clearly reveals that the Hon’ble Court never intended to impose a blanket ban but rather applied the ban only to the appointment that was challenged through the writ filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, the judgement relied on wrong reasoning and hence renders the judgement null and void.
- Secondly, the applicant does not fall within the ambit of the aforementioned writ petition and it was further contended that the applicant had successfully finished their degree in the ODL medium as prescribed by NCTE within the established time limit. Hence, the applicant is eligible for the appointment and shall be treated on par with the 2-year degree holders.
RESPONDENT CONENTIONS
The respondent made two-fold submissions to substantiate the need for the differential treatment that was approved by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta.
- Firstly, there is a need to maintain the standard of teaching and allowing the 18-month program holders who have done it through distance learning will hurt the standard substantially. Therefore, teachers who have done the program through a college by taking the 2-year program should be preferred over the 18-month program holders.
- Secondly, there is a substantial need to streamline the hiring the process by incentivizing the 2-year program holders as their standard of teaching was found to be higher than that of the distance learners. Therefore, the need to push the 2-year program holders is felt and the same should be allowed to maintain the teaching standards.
JUDGEMENT
The hon’ble supreme court held that the impugned judgement is void as the reasoning found in the judgement is flawed as its interpretation is fundamentally flawed. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled that the differential treatment is not highly unjust and the same cannot be enforced through the court of law as it vitiates the basic tenets of the concept of justice. Hence, the Hon’ble Court issued directions to the government to consider the application of the applicant and deal with it on the basis of merit without delving into the differential recognition of the prescribed degrees.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court carefully examined its previous judgment in Jaiveer Singh v. State of Uttarakhand and the subsequent clarification in Viswanath v. State of Uttarakhand to understand the consequences of the decision of the Hon’ble court. The Court found that the Calcutta High Court had misinterpreted the Jaiveer Singh judgment by imposing a blanket ban on all teachers with an 18-month D.El.Ed. through NIOS when it was supposed to be treated as a singular measure taken in the light of the events and the same is not applicable to other cases. Further, the Court emphasized that the 18-month program was a “one-time window” specifically designed to protect in-service teachers who would otherwise face dismissal without the required qualifications after March 31, 2019. The Court noted that approximately 12,91,880 in-service elementary teachers had registered for this program as of September 30, 2017.
Justice B.R. Gavai, delivering the judgment, clarified that “any teacher who was in-service as of August 10, 2017, and qualified D.El.Ed. through the 18-month program via NIOS before April 1, 2019, is a valid diploma holder and is on par with any other teacher who has completed the two-year D.El.Ed. program”.
The Court referenced its December 10, 2024 order, which had already confirmed that “the 18-month diploma obtained by such persons who were in employment as of August 10, 2017, and who have completed the diploma course of 18 months, would be treated as valid diploma holders to apply to other institutions or for promotional opportunities”.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court allowed, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court reinforced, that teachers who were in service as of August 10, 2017, and completed the 18-month D.El.Ed. through NIOS before April 1, 2019, must be considered valid diploma holders for recruitment and promotion. This judgment has made a bold attempt to balance the teacher quality using proper qualifications and protecting the employment rights of in-service teachers who complied with the government’s one-time accommodation. The Court directed authorities to consider the eligibility of the appellants and appoint those who met the verification criteria within three months. The ruling provides much-needed clarity on the status of these qualifications and ensures that teachers who diligently obtained the required qualifications within the government-mandated timeframe are not disadvantaged in their career advancement and their career progression.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY LALITHA SASANKA G
