[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Smt. Sabita Barman vs The State Of Tripura on 1 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.P.(C)No.445 of 2025
1. Smt. Sabita Barman,
D/O: Binu Barman, R/O: East Pratapgarh,
P.O: Agartala, P.S: East Agartala,
Dist: West Tripura,
PIN: 799003, Aged about 45 years approx.
2. Smt. Sangita Das,
D/O: Lt. Atul Kumar Das,
R/O: Vill: Kalachari, P.O: Garad Tilla,
P.S: Kamalpur, Dist: Dhalai,
PIN: 799285, aged about 44 years approx.
3. Smt. Sangita Banik,
W/O: Suman Banik, R/O: A.D Nagar, Road No. 1,
P.O & P.S: A.D Nagar, Dist: West Tripura,
PIN: 799003, aged about 40 years approx.
4. Smt. Piyali Benerjee,
D/O: Sri Prashanta Banerjee,
R/O: Battala to Dashamighat Road, Near Snehamayi Ashram,
P.O: Agartala, P.S: West Agartala,
Dist: West Tripura, PIN: 799001, aged about 44 years approx.
5. Sri Debajit Das,
S/O: Sri Pulin Das, R/O: Vill: Garurband,
P.O: Urmai, P.S: Sonamura,
Dist: Sepahijala, PIN: 799115, aged about 37 years approx.
6. Sri Dipankar Majumder,
S/O: Sri Shyamal Ranjan Majumder,
R/O: Master Para, Town Bordowali, P.O: Agartala,
P.S: West Agartala, Dist: West Tripura,
PIN: 799001, aged about 42 years approx.
7. Smt. Mandira Das,
W/O: Rajib Roy, R/O: Dakbanglow Road,
P.O: R.K Pur, P.S: R.K Pur, Dist: Gomati,
PIN: 799120, aged about 37 years approx.
8. Smt. Ratna Majumder Chowdhury,
W/O: Partha Chowdhury, R/O Vill: Satmura Chowmuhani,
P.O: & P.S: Belonia, Dist: South Tripura,
PIN: 799155, aged about 50 years approx.
....Petitioner(s).
Page 2 of 20
Versus
1. The State of Tripura, Represented by it's Special
Secretary,
School Education Department, Govt. of Tripura,
P.O: Secretariat, P.S: New Capital Complex,
Dist: West Tripura, PIN: 799010.
2. The Director of Secondary Education,
Directorate of Secondary Education, Govt. of Tripura,
P.O: Agartala, P.S: West Agartala,
Dist: West Tripura, PIN: 799001.
3. Teachers Recruitment Board, Tripura, represented by
it's Member Secretary,
Siksha Bhawan, Office Lane,
P.O: Agartala, P.S: West Agartala,
Dist: West Tripura, PIN: 799001.
4. The Controller of Examinations,
Teachers Recruitment Board, Tripura, Siksha Bhawan, Office
Lane,
P.O: Agartala, P.S.: West Agartala,
Dist: West Tripura, PIN: 799001.
..... Respondents.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arijit Bhaumik, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Karnajit De, Addl. G.A.
Date of Hearing : 10.03.2026
Date of delivery of
Judgment and Order : 01.04.2026
Whether fit for
Reporting : YES/NO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order
Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. A. Bhaumik appearing
on behalf of the petitioners and also heard Learned Additional
G.A., Mr. K. De appearing on behalf of the respondents.
02. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking
the following reliefs:
Page 3 of 20
(a) Issue notice upon the Respondents;
(b) call for the records;
(c) Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents
to show cause as to why the Respondents
shall not be directed to reconstitute
equivalence committee for the purpose of
selection processes conducted vide
Advertisement dated 09.09.2016 and
27.05.2017 for the post of Post Graduate
Teacher and Graduate Teacher.
AND
Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to
show cause as to why a writ of mandamus or
any other appropriate writ shall be not issued
directing the Equivalence Committee to take a
decision on granting ex-post facto
equivalence to B.Ed Special Degree with B.Ed
Regular Degree for the purpose of selection
processes conducted vide Advertisement
dated 09.09.2016 and 27.05.2017 for the post
of Post Graduate Teacher and Graduate
Teacher independent of what has been held
by the Hon'ble High Court in the judgment
and order dated 19.12.2018 passed in W.P.(C)
No.1138/2016 title Smt. Sudipa Saha vs. The
State of Tripura and Ors as per the order
dated 21.05.2016 passed in Review Petition
No.23/2019 based on materials already
submitted by the petitioners regarding
equivalence of B.Ed special with B.Ed Regular.
(iv) And after hearing the parties be pleased
to make the rule absolute.
AND
In the interim, be pleased to restrain the
Respondents from taking any coercive action
against the Petitioners till disposal of the
connected writ petition.
AND/OR
Pass any other order/orders may deemed fit
and proper.
03. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the
petitioners drawn the attention of the Court that against an
advertisement for the post of post-graduate teachers (STPGT)
issued by TRBT (Annexure-1) and against another notification
dated 27.05.2017 (Annexure-2) issued by TRBT, the
petitioner Nos.1 to 5 applied for the post of post-graduate
teachers and the rest petitioners applied for the post of
graduate teachers and in those documents, the requisite
Page 4 of 20
qualifications were prescribed by the authority. The present
petitioners applied for those posts and they were qualified in
the written examination, but at the time of scrutiny of their
documents their candidatures were not considered as the
petitioners did not have/had valid B.Ed regular degree rather
they have/had B.Ed Special degree which were not the eligible
criteria for the posts which were advertised. Thereafter, all the
petitioners who were being denied to issue appointment orders
by the respondent-authority, filed separate writ petition before
this Court and this Court by order dated 06.09.2017 passed an
interim order. The operative portion of the said order runs as
follows (Annexure-4):
"On comparative reading of Annexure-10-A
and Annexure-10B to the writ petition, we are
satisfied that the petitioner has made out a
prima facie case. Consequently, as in our
order dated 23.08.2017 passed in W.P.(C)
No.1018/2017 any appointment made to the
post of Graduate Teacher under the Education
(School) Department, Government of Tripura
shall be subject to the outcome of the writ
petition."
04. Thereafter, TRBT recommended the name of one of
the petitioners, Smt. Sabita Barman for recruitment to the post
of post-graduate teacher against the notification dated
07.04.2017 from STPGT 2016 (Annexure-5) and accordingly,
said Sabita Barman was given appointment along with the
other petitioners and they joined and continued their job
accordingly. After that the respondent-State challenged the
order of this High Court by filing appeal and the Division Bench
Page 5 of 20
of this High Court by judgment dated 19.12.2018 rejected the
writ petition and vacated the interim order (Annexure-14).
Thereafter, one of the writ petitioners filed review
petition before this High Court which was numbered as Review
Petition No.23/2019 (Annexure-15) and the Division Bench
by order dated 21.05.2019 disposed of the writ petition giving
liberty to the petitioner to approach to the respondents who
shall consider and decide the petitioner's representation
expeditiously in-accordance-with law. For the sake of
convenience, the operative portion of the said order runs as
follows:
"After the matter was heard for some
time, learned counsel for the petitioner states
that petitioner shall be content if a direction is
issued to the respondents to consider and
decide the petitioner's request, which the
petitioner shall be making within one week,
more so, in the light of the decision, which the
respondents have how taken. Such request is
made with the further prayer that the
authorities may take a decision independent
of what stands observed by the writ Court.
The prayer being innocuous, limited in
nature, is not opposed.
As such, as prayed for, the present
petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the
petitioner to approach the respondents, who
shall consider and decide the petitioner's
representation expeditiously is accordance
with law.
It shall be open to the petitioner to
approach the Court for assailing the order, if
so required and desired on the same and
subsequent cause of action, in accordance
with law."
After that according to Learned Counsel for the
petitioner, representation was submitted by the writ petitioners
but the respondent-authority without considering the same by
Page 6 of 20
memo dated 28.07.2023 (Annexure-16) issued show-cause
notice upon the petitioners. The writ petitioners against the
show-cause notice submitted reply (Annexure-24) and in
para No.4 it has been specifically asserted by the petitioners
that after the order dated 21.05.2019 representations were
filed by various candidates seeking equivalence of B. Ed Special
degree with B. Ed regular but as per the order dated
21.05.2019 passed in Review Petition No.223 of 2019 till date
no decision has been taken regarding equivalence of B. Ed
Special degree with B. Ed regular degree. It was further
highlighted that in the advertisement dated 09.09.2016 it was
provided that equivalency of degrees will be ascertained by
Equivalence Committee formed vide notification No.F.1. (1-
50)- SE/E (NG)/2015 dated 20.08.2015. But no decision has
been taken on the said representation filed by the candidates
as per order dated 21.05.2019. But accordingly to Learned
Counsel, the Equivalence Committee ought to have taken a
decision on the equivalence of B. Ed Special with B. Ed regular
degree but unfortunately till date no such conscious decision
has been taken and the candidates were appointed in the year
2017 and now almost six years have been elapsed since the
date of appointment but no decision has been taken. So, in
absence of any decision of the Equivalence Committee, the
petitioner urged before the authority not to terminate them
from service. But the respondent-authority without considering
their representations by memo dated 27.08.2025 issued
Page 7 of 20
termination order which was totally arbitrary and illegal in spite
of having stay order issued by the Court (Annexure-32) and
under compelling circumstances the present petitioners
according to Learned Counsel have compelled to file this writ
petition seeking the reliefs as prayed for.
05. In support of contention, reliance was placed upon
one judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Social
Jurist, A Civil Rights Group v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi &
Anr. passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.6771
of 2008, wherein in para Nos.6 and 7, Hon'ble the High Court
of Delhi observed as under:
"6. Keeping in view the aforesaid affidavits,
we are of the opinion that respondent nos. 1,
2, 5 and 6 should try to achieve teacher pupil
ratio of 1:5 at the secondary level and 1:2 at
the primary level. We further direct
respondent nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 to grant
equivalence to B.Ed. (SE) with B.Ed.(General)
and to D.Ed. (SE) with D.Ed./TTC for the
purpose of appointment of special teachers in
all the schools in the State as well as schools
run by local bodies namely NDMC, MCD and
Cantonment Board. Needless to say that the
service conditions of the special teachers shall
be same as that of the regular teachers
holding the qualification of general teachers.
We also request the respondent nos. 1, 2, 5
and 6 to consider granting preference and
priority to candidates holding B.Ed.(SE) and
D.Ed.(SE) degrees in appointment of teachers
in all their schools. The school authorities
shall ensure that each school shall have at
least two special teachers and further that
necessary teaching aids and reading materials
are provided. This shall be done within six
months.
7. In our opinion, till adequate number of
special educators are available, two or three
schools in a cluster should avail the services
of itinerant teacher as mentioned by NCERT in
its affidavit. We also direct RCI as well as
respondent nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 to start
programmes to train in-service teachers as
resource teachers so that they are equipped
to take care of disabled children. Respondent
Page 8 of 20
nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 are also directed to start
short term orientation programme for
principals and educational administrators so
as to sensitise them towards the needs of a
disabled children."
Referring the same, Learned Counsel drawn the
attention of the Court that by the said judgment, the High
Court of Delhi has observed to grant equivalence to B. Ed (SE)
with B. Ed General, but in the case at hand inspite of specific
direction of this Court no such decision has been taken by the
respondent-authority through the Equivalence Committee for
decision, resulting which the petitioners have been seriously
prejudiced.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners, further drawn
the attention of the Court that the rehabilitation counsel of
India has accredited the present petitioner as a special
educator (mental retaliation) and inspite of provisions in the
RTE Act 2009, RCI Act 1992 and the Right of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016, the respondent-authority did not take
any decision in spite of specific direction for ascertainment of
equivalency of degree by Equivalence Committee framed by
the Education Department vide notification dated 20.08.2015.
Reference was further placed upon another
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P(C)
No.132 of 2016 wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court by the said
judgment dated 15.07.2025 made certain observations. The
relevant part of the observation runs as follows:
Page 9 of 20
****
"3. Let the selection and appointment be
made of qualified/competent/eligible
teachers only. Further, the requirement of RCI
qualification certificate also needs to be taken
into account for appointment to the post as
directed by this Court in its judgment dated
28.10.2021, as a candidate not having RCI
certificate shall be ineligible.
Meanwhile, we have been informed that
in many of the States and Union Territories,
adhoc teachers on contractual basis are
presently imparting education and taking
classes of children with special needs. We
have also been informed that in some of the
States, these teachers have been continuing
for the last 20 years, approximately. For these
reasons, the States shall immediately
constitute a Screening Committee consisting
of the following:
1. State Commissioner for Persons
with Disabilities (for short 'Disability
Commissioner') appointed under Section
79 of Rights of Persons with Disabilities
('RPWD') Act, 2016.
2. Secretary, Education of the
concerned education department;
3. A nominee of the RCI who will be a
competent person having knowledge in
the prescribed area.
This shall be the three-member committee
for each of the States and UTs."
Referring the said judgment, Learned Counsel
further drawn the attention of the Court that in our State as
per the judgment, the figure of children in Special needs in
respect of our State was 3715. It was further submitted that in
the said judgment Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed that
RCI qualification certificate also needs to be taken into account
for appointment to the posts. It was also observed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that in many States adhoc teachers on
contractual basis were engaged for imparting education and
taking classes of children with special needs and as such
Hon'ble the Supreme Court made observation for formation of
Screening Committee and the Hon'ble Apex Court further
observed that the Screening Committee shall consider the age
limit in appropriate cases in respect of persons who are already
working and teaching for last many years.
Reference was further placed upon another
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Manoj
Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
passed in Civil Appeal No(s).8140/2024, wherein in para
No.8, Hon'ble the Apex Court observed as under:
"8. Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellants, relied upon the
judgment passed in Pritam Kumar Tak vs.
State of Rajasthan (Civil Writ Petition
No.14481 of 2012 decided on 26.08.2014)
and Rajni vs. State of Rajasthan (Civil Writ
Petition No.17833 of 2018 decided in
February 2019). Relying on these judgments,
Mr. Malhotra argued that it is already settled
by at least two judgments of the Rajasthan
High Court that Rehabilitation Council of India
('RCI'), established under the Rehabilitation
Council of India Act, 1992, is the competent
authority for prescribing qualifications for the
appointment of special education teachers. He
therefore relied on the office order dated
20.04.2009, issued by the RCI declaring the
equivalance of degrees. It is argued that the
division bench of the High Court therefore
erred in following another judgment of the
same High Court in Sarita Sharma vs. State of
Rajasthan (Civil Writ Petition No.20022 of
2012 decided on 22.02.2013)."
In another judgment in Govt. of NCT of Delhi &
Ors. v. Ms. Uma Rani & Anr. passed by Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in WP(C) No.700 of 2023 along with other connected
matters, in para No.15, Hon'ble the High Court of Delhi
observed as under:
"15. The clarification also states that a
Notification dated 23.08.2010 has been issued
under Section 23(1) of the Right to Education
Act, 2009, which specifies that B.Ed. (Special
Education) is one of the eligible qualifications,
however, such persons 'after appointment'
have to undergo a six months' special course
of elementary education."
Further reference was made upon another judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bhola Nath v. The
State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in (2026) SCC OnLine
SC 129, wherein in para Nos.13.2 to 13.5, Hon'ble the Apex
Court observed as under:
"Limits on Perpetual Contractual
Engagements:
13.2. In the present case, the respondent-
State had engaged the services of the
appellants on sanctioned posts since the year
2012. It was only towards the end of the year
2022 that the respondents communicated that
no further extension of the appellants'
engagement was likely to be granted.
13.3. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid
action is not only vitiated by arbitrariness but
is also in clear derogation of the equality
principles enshrined in Article 14 of the
Constitution. The respondent-State initially
engaged the appellants in their youth to
discharge public duties and functions. Having
rendered long and dedicated service, the
appellants cannot now be left to fend for
themselves, particularly when the
employment opportunities that may have
been available to them a decade ago are no
longer accessible owing to age constraints.
13.4. We are unable to discern any rational
basis for the respondent-State's decision to
discontinue the appellants after nearly ten
years of continuous service.We are conscious
that the symbiotic-relationship between the
appellants and the respondent-State was
mutually beneficial, the State derived the
advantage of the appellants' experience and
institutional familiarity, while the appellants
remained in public service. In such
circumstances, any departure from a long-
standing practice of renewal, particularly one
that frustrates the legitimate expectation of
the employees, ought to be supported by
cogent reasons recorded in a speaking order.
13.5. Such a decision must necessarily be a
conscious and reasoned one. An employee
who has satisfactorily discharged his duties
over several years and has been granted
repeated extensions cannot, overnight, be
treated as surplus or undesirable. We are
unable to accept the justification advanced by
the respondents as the obligation of the State,
as a model employer, extends to fair
treatment of its employees irrespective of
whether their engagement is contractual or
regular."
Relying all those judgments, Learned Counsel
submitted that if the observations of the said judgments are
followed in that case there is no scope to deprive the
petitioners from their legal right which the respondent
authority has ignored to consider the same.
It was further submitted by Learned Counsel for the
petitioners that the Government of Meghalaya also by a
notification dated 30.07.2025 has created 283 nos. of
sanctioned post of special educators in different levels. It was
further submitted that although by memo dated 27.08.2025
(supra) the appointment of one of the petitioners was
terminated with immediate effect by the Authority but by
another memo on the same day they have withdrawn the said
memo subject to outcome of WP(C) 445 of 2025 i.e. the
present writ petition.
Finally, Learned Counsel submitted that inspite of
rendering service for a considerable long period at this stage,
there is no scope to terminate the petitioners from their service
which they are undergoing and as such Learned Counsel urged
for allowing this writ petition.
06. The State has contested the writ petition by filing
counter-affidavit denying the entire assertions of the
petitioners in their writ petition. However, at the time of
hearing, Learned Additional G.A. drawn page Nos.25 and 26
(Annexure-1) of the writ petition wherein in Clause-A the
requisite qualification for appointment to the post was
mentioned as Post Graduate Degree in the relevant subject
with at least 50% marks (or its equivalent) from recognized
university and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) from NCTE
(National Council for Teachers Education) recognized institution
and submitted that the present petitioners did not have such
requisite qualifications for the posts which were advertised. In
respect of selection of candidates for recruitment for the post
of post graduate teachers and also at page No.35 (Annexure-
2) of the writ petition wherein in 1(a) it is written as follows:
"1. (a) Graduate/ Post Graduate from
recognized University with at least 50%
marks in either Graduation or Post Graduation
(or its equivalent) and Bachelor of Education
(B. Ed) from National Council for Teacher
Education recognized Institution {in
accordance with the National Council for
Teacher Education (Form of application for
recognition, the time limit for submission of
application, determination of norms and
standards for recognition of teacher education
programmes and permission to start new
course or training) Regulations, 2002 notified
on 13.11.2002 and National Council for
Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and
Procedure) Regulations, 2007 notified on
10.12.2007}."
Referring the said page Nos.25 & 35 Learned
Additional G.A. drawn the attention of the Court that the
present petitioners did not have requisite qualifications for the
posts, they applied for at the time of filing of application. He
also drawn the attention of the Court the Annexure- R-1 i.e.
the order of this High Court in WP(C) 1138 of 2016 and also
drawn the attention of the Court Annexure-R-3, i.e. the order
dated 23.08.2017 passed by this High Court in WP(C) No.1018
of 2017. He also drawn the attention of the Court relying upon
Annexure-R-4 wherein in Clause-2(v) it was written as
follows:
"2.(v) The appointment may be terminated at
any time if any kind of discrepancy found in
the mark sheet's/certificate's submitted by
the candidate and if he degrees are not
recognized by the U.G.C. & N.C.T.E as
applicable."
Referring the same, he submitted that there was a
clause in the order of appointment that in case of discrepancy
the authority reserves the right to terminate the appointment
of any of the candidates at any time.
After that Learned Additional G.A. drawn the
attention of the Court referring para Nos.8, 10, 12, 27, 28, 37,
38, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54 & 57 of the judgment dated 19.12.2018
passed by the Division Bench of this High Court in WP(C)
No.1138 of 2016 and batch matters which are as under:
"8. It is not in dispute that pursuant to such
advertisement, all of the writ petitioners
applied, appeared in the written examination
and were selected for the said post. Only
thereafter, their applications for verification
of fulfillment of eligibility criteria processed.
It is at this stage, that it was so ascertained
that none of the writ petitioners fulfilled the
eligibility criteria inasmuch as they had not
obtained a degree of Bachelor of Education
from "National Council for Teacher Education
recognised institution."
10. On 06.09.2017 when these petitions came
up for hearing, this Court directed that
appointments made, if any, shall be subject to
the outcome of the writ petition.
12. In any event, we are of the considered
view that no equity can be claimed by any one
of such persons, merely for the reason that
their cases were pending before this Court
and that the State volunteered to issue letters
of appointment, dehors the rules prescribing
minimum eligibility criteria.
27. Significantly, not everyone and anyone is
eligible and entitled to impart education to a
child defined under the said Act. This Act does
not define as to who can be and is a teacher.
Nor does it prescribe any eligibility criteria.
Though it prescribes the pupil teacher ratio
and the manner in which the schools are
required to be managed through committees
and formation of school development plan.
The Act also by virtue of Section 26 provides
that the appropriate government and the local
authorities are under an obligation to ensure
that under no circumstances vacancy of the
teacher in a school exceeds by 10% of the
total sanctioned strength. 28. The Central
Government by virtue of its power under
Section 23 has notified NCTE as the authority
to prescribe the eligibility criteria for
appointment of a teacher. The criteria so
prescribed is similar to the one prescribed by
the State in the rules, subject matter of
challenge in the present petition. To put it
conversely, the rules stand framed only to
meet the requirement of eligibility so
prescribed by the said authority.
28. The Central Government by virtue of its
power under Section 23 has notified NCTE as
the authority to prescribe the eligibility
criteria for appointment of a teacher. The
criteria so prescribed is similar to the one
prescribed by the State in the rules, subject
matter of challenge in the present petition. To
put it conversely, the rules stand framed only
to meet the requirement of eligibility so
prescribed by the said authority.
37. Simply because the petitioners fulfill the
eligibility criteria required under the Disability
Act or for that matter the Rehabilitation Act,
ipso facto would not make the rules to be in
any manner arbitrary. The children to whom
the petitioners are imparting education in all
the schools of Tripura, these are not special
schools meant for special children. It could
not be shown as to how the criteria
prescribed under the Education Act are ultra
vires to any one of the provisions of the
Disability Act or Rehabilitation Act. We notice
that the criterion of graduation of one year
B.Ed (Special Education) was prescribed by
the NCTE is only up to Class-VIII. This, in our
considered view, would not make the criteria
prescribed for the higher classes to be
discriminatory, for the focus in the said
classes has to be on studies as by this time
the cast of the child‟s body and mind already
stands laid.
38. We have ourselves researched, minutely
examined and found several decisions of the
Apex Court, explaining as to what really is the
meaning of "equality before law", what are
the grounds on which a legislation, primary or
delegated, can be assailed; what are the
constraints of the Court in holding the same
to be ultra vires and what is the approach
which the Court must adopt in examining its
constitutional validity.
49. Notification dated 27th May, 2017 clarified
that the Government of Tripura was desirous
of selecting candidates for the post of
Graduate teachers for class IX and X under
the Secondary Education Directorate. It made
clear the minimum essential qualification in
the following terms: ―Essential Minimum
Qualification: (a) Graduate/Post Graduate for
recognized University with at least 50%
marks in either Graduation or Post Graduation
(or its equivalent) and Bachelor of Education
(B.Ed) from national Council for Teacher
Education recognised institution. OR (b)
Graduate/Post Graduate from recognized
University with at least 45% marks in either
Graduation or Post Graduation (or its
equivalent) and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed)
from national Council for Teacher Education
recognised institution {in accordance with the
National Council for Teacher Education (Form
of application for recognition, the time limit
for submission of application, determination
of norms and standards for recognition of
teacher education programmes and
permission to start new course or training)
Regulations, 2002 notified on 13.11.2002 and
National Council for Teacher Education
(Recognition Norms and Procedure)
Regulations, 2007 notified on 10.12.2007.}
OR (c) 4-years degree of B.A.Ed/B.Sc.Ed from
national Council for Teacher Education
recognised institution. N.B.: Relaxation up to
5% in the qualifying marks will be allowed to
the candidates belonging to SC/ST/PH
Category.‖ (emphasis supplied)
50. Significantly, the area of selections stand
extended to such of those persons who have
acquired higher qualification but what is
important is that all the candidates must have
had some formal education in the field of
education. Even under the provision of
equivalence so stipulated therein, petitioners‟
education fulfilling the eligibility criteria does
not match with that of the criteria required
under the Education Act.
52. Before us, NCTE has filed an affidavit
categorically stating that B.Ed (Special
Education) is not an eligibility criterion for
appointment of a teacher in Senior and Senior
Secondary classes. Further, Rehabilitation
Council has been taking a contradictory stand
which fact is evident from para 14 of the
affidavit, which reads as under: ―14. That
with reference to the statements made in
para 18 & 19 of the writ petition, the
answering deponent begs to state that taking
reference to the earlier RTI reply dated 1-4-
2017 given by the Public Information Officer
(PIO), NCTE, Regional Office, Bhubaneswar, it
was wrongly answered to the query no. 1 by
replying that "the B.Ed. degree approved
either by NCTE and RCI is considered to be
equivalent to each other" (Annexure-11 of the
writ petition). The same was subsequently
clarified by a letter dated 6-11-2017 issued by
the Under Secretary (Legal), NCTE, Head
Office, New Delhi, to the Regional Director,
Eastern Regional Committee that ".......the
NCTE notification dated 23-8- 2010, 29-7-
2011 & 12-11-2014 does not speak about the
equivalency of B.Ed. with B.Ed.(Special
Education) to teach classes IX-X & XI-XII".
Moreover, the answer deponent further begs
to state that the Rehabilitation council of
India (RCI) in WP(C) NO. 520/2017 being
respondent No.4 specifically admitted the fact
in the counter affidavit in para 5 that B.Ed. Spl
Education is not an eligible qualification for
PGT and GT. Copy of the letter dated 6-11-
2017 issued by the Under Secretary (Legal),
NCTE, to the Regional Director, Eastern
Regional Committee, is annexed herewith as
Annexure-B.
53. Simply because certain States, on the
basis of equivalence, have held B.Ed (Special
Education) equivalent to that of B.Ed. degree
in General Education, would not confer any
right upon the petitioners. Nor would the
decision of the NCTE to consider the same
with future effect confer any right for what is
to be seen is the eligibility of the candidates
as on the date when the advertisement was
issued.
54. There is yet another reason for not
interfering in the present petition and that
being the petitioners having participated in
the selection process, whereafter only, upon
being selected, they filed the instant
petitions.
57. Further, what is required to be seen are
the conditions prescribed at the time of
issuance of the advertisement and not the
subsequent decision, if any, taken by the
government, modifying the conditions which
the petitioners fulfill. Well that is for future
and not for the past."
Referring the same Learned Additional G.A. further
submitted that since the Division Bench vacated the interim
order passed earlier and also dismissed the writ petitions filed
by the present petitioners and as such at this stage, there is no
scope on the part of this Court to overlook the judgment of the
Division Bench of this High Court and furthermore, by the
Review Petition also no such relief was granted to the present
petitioners and as such nothing survives for adjudication in this
writ petition. So, Learned Addl. G.A. urged for dismissal of this
present writ petition.
07. I have heard both the sides at length and perused
the writ petition along with the documents annexed with the
writ petition as well as the counter-affidavit filed by the
respondent-authority and the documents filed. It is the
admitted position that against the advertisement i.e.
Annexure-1 and Annexure-2, the present petitioners applied
for the posts and they appeared in the written examination and
got qualified but at the time of document verification, it was
found that they did not have B.Ed regular degree rather they
had B. Ed special degree. After that the writ petition was filed
and as per interim order of the Court they continued to remain
in service after their selection but it is also the admitted
position that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners was
finally dismissed by the Division Bench of this High Court. The
petitioners on so many occasions submitted representations to
the authority but those were not considered. They also
preferred Review Petition before this Court as already stated
and this High Court by order dated 21.05.2019 in Review
Petition No.23 of 2019 disposed of the Review Petition granting
liberty to the petitioners to approach the respondents with
further direction to decide the petitioners' representations
expeditiously in-accordance-with law. The main canvas in this
writ petition filed by the petitioners is that after the direction of
the High Court they approached to the authority by filing
repeated representations but those were not considered by the
authority even although the State constituted Equivalence
Committee (Annexure-R-5) on 11.07.2018 but unfortunately,
till today no action has been taken by the said Equivalence
Committee for considering representation of the present
petitioners resulting which they have compelled to file this writ
petition before this Court. In the meantime, the respondent-
authority issued termination order but thereafter, by another
memo dated 27.08.2025 they have withdrawn the said
termination memo subject to the outcome of WP(C) No.445 of
2025. It is surprising as to how the respondent-authority
allowed the petitioners to continue their job if the petitioners
did not have requisite qualifications for the posts for which
advertisements were issued.
In course of hearing Learned Counsel submitted that
by this time one of the candidates, Dipankar Das who later on
obtained B. Ed degree was regularized by the respondent-
authority. But it is not the case of the present petitioners that
they have obtained degree of B. Ed Regular degree by this
time. It is also surprising that on 27.08.2025 the respondent-
Director of Secondary Education issued order of termination
but on the same day by another memo vide No.No.F.1(1-43)-
SE/E(NG)/2018(L-9) withdrawn the said memo. In this regard
nothing has been explained by Learned Addl. G.A. appearing
on behalf of the respondent-authority at the time of hearing,
which shows the arbitrary action of the respondent-authority in
this regard. The present petitioners in this writ petition prayed
for taking conscious decision by the Equivalence Committee
which has been formed by the respondent-authority on
11.07.2018 (Annexure-R-5) vide No.No.F.1(1-50)-
SE/E(NG)/2018.
18. In the result the writ petition filed by the petitioners
is hereby allowed with direction to the respondent-authority to
direct the Equivalence Committee to take conscious decision in
the light of the representation made by the petitioners to the
respondent-authority in pursuance of the direction passed by
this Court in Review Petition No.23 of 2019 dated
21.05.2019 within a period of three (3) months from the date
of passing of this judgment.
With this observation, this present writ petition
stands disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed
of.
JUDGE
PURNITA DEB DEB
Date: 2026.04.02 17:35:14
+05'30'
Purnita
