--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing: 24th February, 2025
Date of judgment: 25th February, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARINDAM SINHA, ACJ.
1. Mr. Routray, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of
appellant, who was writ petitioner. He submits, by impugned judgment
single Judge on finding that his client having two years' B.Ed (Special
2. On query made, he refers to corrigendum dated 31st July, 2024 to
submit, thereby his client, candidate for the applied post, stood rejected
as having two years' B.Ed (Special Education). Drawing attention to
the requirement on eligibility in respect of category-2 (for classes VI to
marks and 1 year B.Ed (Special Education). Relied upon criterion is
3. Mr. Routray submits, National Council for Teacher Education
(NCTE) had earlier issued notification dated 23rd August, 2010. At that
time the B.Ed (Special Education) course was of duration, one year.
adopted resolution dated 22nd August, 2023 to have recruitment. On
query made he submits, the resolution also carried age criteria by clause
6. Clause 6.1 without the proviso is reproduced below.
upper primary schools. Long prior to publication of said notice the 1-
it became two years' B.Ed course. Corresponding notifications were
4. He lays emphasis that by said notification dated 23rd August,
alternatives. His client disclosed mail dated 28th September, 2023 to
having the qualification of the two years course, could apply. Answer
was given in the affirmative. Hence, his client and others, though had
two years' Special B.Ed qualification, applied under the notice.
"1-I passed 2 year B.Ed Special Education. In
application form there is no option for 2 year Special
B.Ed Only show 1 year Spl. B.ed.
2- For choosing Qualification only shows B.ed/BA
B.ed/B.Sc B.ed/D.el.ed/B.el.ed/B.A. But not Any option
for Spl. B.ed. What will I choose Diploma/B.ed?
3- I applied in 1 year Spl. B.Ed and Qualification
Diploma then B.ed. do I need reapply?"
xxx xxx xxx
"Need not apply again. You apply correct path.
Thank You."
5. Mr. Routray seeks to demonstrate that there was confusion in the
department. He draws attention to letter dated 14th May, 2024 issued by
NCTE to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary of the department. Text
from the letter is reproduced below.
" I am directed to refer to your D.O. letter No. No.
SME-EL2-EL2-0038-2024 dated 15.03.2024 on the
subject cited above and to say that the NCTE laid down
the notifications regarding minimum qualification for a
person to be eligible for consideration of appointment as
a teacher for classes I to XII published on dated
23.08.2010 as amended on 23.08.2010, 29.07.2011,
12.11.2014, 13.11.2019 and 13.10.2021.
2. A set of aforesaid NCTE notifications is forwarded
for ready reference and to make the appointments
accordingly."
(emphasis supplied)
Purportedly pursuant thereto circular dated 24th June, 2024 was issued
by the department creating the confusion. Text of the circular is
reproduced below.
"In inviting reference to the subject cited above, I am
directed to say that a line of clarification was sought for
from the Chairperson, NCTE regarding the eligibility of
the candidates having 2-year B.Ed (Special Education)
for their selection in the Upper Primary (Class VI-VII)
Schools. In response to which NCTE has forwarded
Notifications regarding minimum qualification for a
person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher. It
reveals from the Notifications that only candidates
having 'B.A/B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1-year
B.Ed (Special Edication)' are eligible to be teacher in
the Upper Primary Schools."
(emphasis supplied)
6. He then draws attention to letter dated 5th August, 2024 of the
Commissioner-cum-Secretary. Two paragraphs from the letter are
reproduced below.
"It is relevant to mention here that during 2023-24
this Department had invited applications for filling up of
20,000 Junior Teacher (Schematic). Many candidates
having two years B.Ed. (Special Education) have
applied in the said recruitment but we are unable to
consider their candidature. Being aggrieved, several
representations are being filed on the ground that in
letter dated 18.03.2015, the Rehabilitation Council of
India (RCI) has informed all concerned Institutions and
Universities that B.Ed. Special Education will be of two
year duration starting from academic session 2015-16
onwards (copy enclosed).
I would therefore request you to kindly reconsider
the matter and in view of the changed circumstances,
two years B.Ed. special education may kindly be
allowed as a qualification for Upper Primary teachers.
In this regard, it is humbly submitted that it may not
justifiable that while one year B.Ed. (Special
Education) is allowed for posting as a teacher, degree
with a longer course duration is not allowed."
(emphasis supplied)
He submits, the learned single Judge failed to appreciate the facts and
erroneously applied the law. Impugned judgment be reversed in appeal
for his client being considered for appointment.
7. Mr. Das, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate
appears on behalf of State and opposes the appeal. He submits, the
learned single Judge made no error in appreciating the facts and duly
applied the law. Appellant and others knowing fully well the
requirement of 1-year Special B.Ed. qualification, they having done two
years' Special B.Ed. course, applied. They then turned around and
challenged the rejection of their applications. They had not challenged
the eligibility criterion. He submits, close scrutiny of the eligibility
essential requirement of qualification will reveal that at least 50% in
graduation marks and 1-year Special B.Ed. was required. The minimum
attached to the graduation marks. The second qualification on Special
B.Ed. was a specific qualification as opposed to being a minimum of 1
in a 2-year course. He submits, the appeal be dismissed.
8. We will approach controversy between candidates such as
appellant and others who have connected appeals on the one hand and
the department on the other upon presuming that there was requirement
to fill up the 20,000 posts on a merit based selection process. The notice
inviting applications is dated 10th September, 2023. It is pursuant to
resolution dated 22nd August, 2023 adopted by the department. By the
resolution the department decided to go by notification dated 23 rd
August, 2010 of NCTE. Several notifications were issued thereafter by
NCTE. We have not been able to see why the department resorted to be
guided by the notification issued in year 2010. Said notification gave
several eligibility criteria on qualification. One of them was regarding
having B.Ed. Special Education qualification, at that time available on a
1-year course. This qualification one could obtain only upto year 2014,
after which the same qualification could only be had by undergoing a
two years' course. Though several eligibility academic qualification
requirements were given in the alternative but controversy arose on
only this particular requirement. It follows that clarifications were
sought and obtained. The NCTE was consistent in all correspondence
originating from it that the requirement was on minimum qualification.
9. Additional Secretary to Government issued aforesaid circular
dated 24th June, 2024, in which was discussed the matter of
clarification. According to the Additional Secretary, the clarification
revealed that only candidates having B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50%
marks and 1-year B.Ed. (Special Education) are eligible to be teacher in
the upper primary schools. The clarification was originally sought for
by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary. After this revelation, said
Commissioner-cum-Secretary by her letter dated 5th August, 2024 again
said that it may not be justifiable that while one year B.Ed. (Special
Education) is allowed for posting as a teacher, degree with a longer
course duration is not allowed. This was not considered. On the
contrary, the department sought to stick with its stand that it was an
essential eligibility qualification for a candidate, who had done the
B.Ed. (Special Education) 1-year course. This therefore became an
eligibility criterion, by which many candidates stood eliminated simply
because the course ceased to be available from year 2015-16 onwards.
10. Referring to the age criteria, we must consider it in context of this
asserted elimination eligibility qualification. The age for general
candidates is 18 years till 38 years. On taking estimates, further
elimination is also possible because candidates, who hold B.Ed. 1-year
course qualification must have been of the appropriate age at the end of
year 2014, to apply for recruitment under the notice dated 10 th
September, 2023. This assertion therefore does not lead to a logical
conclusion for furthering recruitment by due process of selection on
merit. Also to be considered is the fact that the eligibility criteria were
in several alternatives. That militates on any one of them being
construed as elimination eligibility criterion. Still further, the
department itself was not sure of the position, having embarked on a
recruitment process based on an obsolete NCTE notification. It sought
clarification. It got the clarification, misinterpreted it and thereafter
disregarded the submission made by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary,
who had sought the clarification in the first place.
11. The judgments that have been considered by the learned single
Judge are in context of essential eligibility criterion, changing of rules
and other questions but not on what the facts were, giving rise to the
controversy between the parties. We do not want the situation to lead to
elimination of meritorious candidates, who have been required to do
B.Ed. Special Education on a course of longer duration. There is no
rationale, as to why persons who had done the course upto year 2014
should be deemed to be better qualified than persons who did the same
course later on a longer duration, to stand disqualified.
12. The learned single Judge considered the following judgments of
the Supreme Court.
i. Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahamad
reported in (2019) 2 SCC 404, paragraphs 26 and 27. The Supreme
Court said it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a
higher qualification necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another,
albeit lower, qualification. This was not the proposition involved simply
because the required qualification was same, being B.Ed. (Special
Education). Relied upon NCTE notification dated 23rd August, 2010
mentioned 1-year course duration. Subsequently, from year 2015-16
course duration became 2 years. It was the same qualification but on
different course periods. The judgment thus is inapplicable to facts of
the case.
ii. Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank v. Anit Kumar
Das reported in (2012) 12 SCC 80 for proposition that in absence of
challenge to prescribed eligibility criteria, participation of the candidate
in the recruitment would bar him from mounting the challenge. In this
case we have referred to facts of a candidate seeking clarification at the
time of submitting her application and receiving answer in the
affirmative. Furthermore, the department itself sought clarifications.
The relied upon case is also not applicable because appellant is
challenging his disqualification as opposed to challenging the eligibility
criterion.
iii. Yogesh Kumar v. Government of NCT, Delhi reported
in (2003) 3 SCC 548. The learned single Judge appreciated declaration
of the law made by the Supreme Court to be that recruitment to public
services should be held strictly in accordance with terms of the
advertisement and the recruitment rules. It is open to the recruiting
authorities to evolve a policy of recruitment and to decide the source,
from which the recruitment is to be made. The department while
embarking on the recruitment process did not evolve its own policy but
relied upon an obsolete notification issued by NCTE. At the time of
resolving to recruit and thereafter publishing the recruitment notice,
B.Ed. (Special Education) course was to be had over a period of 2-
years. There is no material on record to show a policy decision was
taken to eliminate those candidates, who took the course on 2-year
period commencing year 2015-16.
13. Prayer of appellant made in his writ petition is, inter alia, for
quashing corrigendum notice dated 31st July, 2024, by which his
candidature in the provisional merit list published by notice dated 26th
July, 2024 stood listed in the reject list as having two years' B.Ed.
(Special Education) for post of Junior Teacher (Schematic)-2023. The
corrigendum notice is set aside and quashed. Appellant's name is
restored to the provisional merit list for onward action on appointment
to be taken pursuant to the recruitment notice dated 10th September,
2023.
14. Impugned judgment is reversed. The appeal is allowed and
disposed of.
( Arindam Sinha )
Acting Chief Justice
( M.S. Sahoo )
Judge
Sks
Designation: Personal Assistant
