Uttarakhand High Court
Lalit Mohan Arya vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 29 April, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 91 of 2025 (S/S)
Lalit Mohan Arya ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ........ Respondents
Present : Mr. Devendra Dushoni, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Nandan Arya, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Pundir, D.A.G. for the State.
Writ Petition No. 2470 of 2024 (S/S)
Bhawana Durgapal ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ........ Respondents
Present : Mr. Devesh Upreti, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S.Pundir, D.A.G. for the State.
Writ Petition No. 2472 of 2024 (S/S)
Nandan Singh Bohra and Others ..........Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ........ Respondents
Present : Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. N.S.Pundir, D.A.G. for the State.
Writ Petition No. 27 of 2025 (S/S)
Amit Shankar Bhadula and Others ..........Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ........ Respondents
Present : Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. N.S.Pundir, D.A.G. for the State.
Writ Petition No. 70 of 2025 (S/S)
Neetu Rani and Others ..........Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ........ Respondents
Present : Mr. Anuj Kumar Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioners, through video
conferencing.
Mr. N.S.Pundir, D.A.G. for the State.
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, Advocate for the NCTE.
2
Writ Petition No. 80 of 2025 (S/S)
Satpal Singh and Others ..........Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ........ Respondents
Present : Mr. A.M. Saklani, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. N.S.Pundir, D.A.G. for the State.
Writ Petition No. 138 of 2025 (S/S)
Sarita Rani and Another ..........Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ........ Respondents
Present : Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. N.S.Pundir, D.A.G. for the State.
Writ Petition No. 195 of 2025 (S/S)
Sahzad Husain ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ........ Respondents
Present : Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S.Pundir, D.A.G. for the State.
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, Advocate for the NCTE.
Writ Petition No. 196 of 2025 (S/S)
Deepsikha Rajput ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ........ Respondents
Present : Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S.Pundir, D.A.G. for the State.
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, Advocate for the NCTE.
Writ Petition No. 197 of 2025 (S/S)
Deepak Kumar ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ........ Respondents
Present : Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S.Pundir, D.A.G. for the State.
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, Advocate for the NCTE.
3
Writ Petition No. 209 of 2025 (S/S)
Kapil Dev and Others ..........Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ........ Respondents
Present : Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. N.S.Pundir, D.A.G. for the State.
Writ Petition No. 522 of 2025 (S/S)
Neha Pant and Another ..........Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ........ Respondents
Present : Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. N.S.Pundir, D.A.G. for the State.
Writ Petition No. 639 of 2025 (S/S)
Prakash Chandra and Others ..........Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ........ Respondents
Present : Mr. Armaan Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. N.S.Pundir, D.A.G. for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Since common question of law and facts are involved in
these bunch of writ petitions, they are heard together and being
decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of
convenience, the facts of WPSS No.91 of 2025 are referred to.
2. In this bunch of petitions, the petitioners seek
directions to the respondents to consider the candidature of the
petitioners for the post of Assistant Teacher, Government Primary
School, against the advertisements, as per the directions and
observations dated 10.12.2024, made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Review Petition (Civil) Diary No.4961 of 2024, in Civil
Appeal No.7873 of 2023, Viswanath and Others Vs. State of
Uttarakhand and Others ("the review petition").
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that they were working
as Assistant Teachers in primary schools in various Districts of
State of Uttarakhand. They had cleared teachers' eligibility test.
They also obtained D.EL.ED training, as recognized by the National
Council for Teacher Education ("the NCTE") in elementary
education through Open and Distance ("ODL") mode conducted by
National Institute of Open Schooling ("NIOS"). It was the claim of
the petitioners that they are eligible for being considered for
appointment as Assistant Teachers in Government Primary Schools
situated in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioners were not
permitted to participate in the recruitment process for recruitment
to the post of Assistant Teachers in Government Primary Schools. It
was challenged in a bunch of writ petitions, namely, WPSS No.350
of 2021, Nandan Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and
Another, and connected matters, ("the first petitions") which were
decided on 14.09.2022, and the Division Bench of this Court held
as follows:-
"50. We are also of the view that in the light of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak
(supra), the State Government is bound to act as per the
directions and orders issued by the NCTE, which is
constituted under a Central legislation, and is recognized
by the Central Government as the academic authority
under Section 23 of the RTE Act. The qualifications
prescribed by the NCTE for teachers, inter alia, teaching
primary classes are binding on the State Government and,
therefore, the State Government cannot insist that the
Assistant Teachers (Primary) in the State should have
undergone the two-years' D.El.Ed. programme. In respect
of the in-service teachers, who have undergone the 18
months' D.El.Ed. programme conducted by the NIOS
through the ODL mode, the State Government cannot seek
to discriminate by debarring them from offering their
candidatures for the posts of Assistant Teachers (Primary)
in the State of Uttarakhand. The impugned Communication
/ Order bearing No. 236/XXIVA/1/2021/18/2018 T.C.
dated 10.02.2021, issued by the Secretary, Department of
Elementary Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, therefore,
cannot be sustained, and we, accordingly, quash the same.
51. We allow all the writ petitions, and hold that the 18
month D.El.Ed. Training Diploma conducted through the
ODL mode in elementary education by the NIOS is a valid
Diploma for applying against the regular posts of Assistant
Teachers (Primary) in the State of Uttarakhand. The
respondents shall, therefore, consider the candidatures of
the petitioners for the said posts on the basis of the
applications made by them pursuant to the advertisement
issued by the Department of Elementary Education,
Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. The petitioners
shall be entitled to the costs quantified at Rs. 2,000/- each
to be paid by the respondent No. 1, i.e. the State of
Uttarakhand within four weeks."
5. The judgment and order dated 14.09.2022, passed in
the first petition was challenged in appeal before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Jaiveer Singh and Others Vs. State of
Uttarakhand and Others, 2023 INSC 1024 ("the appeal"). While
allowing the writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided the
appeal on 28.11.2023, and in Para 41 observed as follows:-
"41. In view of what has been held by this Court
hereinabove, we find that the High Court erred in holding
that 18 months Diploma conducted by NIOS through ODL
mode is equivalent to the 2 years regular Diploma,
particularly so, when there was no material placed on
record to even remotely hold that such a qualification was
recommended by the Expert Body NCTE. On the contrary,
the communication dated 6th September 2019 of NCTE,
the directives of MHRD so also the recognition order dated
22nd September 2017 clearly go on to show that the 18
months Diploma was provided as a one time window to the
in-service teachers to acquire the minimum qualifications
between the 2017 Amendment Act and the outer limit of
1st April 2019. In our considered view, the High Court has
totally erred in holding that the 2 years Diploma is
equivalent to 18 months Diploma."
6. Thereafter, in the result, the appeal was dismissed,
where the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
"(i) The appeals are allowed;
(ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 14th
September 2022 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand
at Nainital is quashed and set aside; and
(iii) The writ petitions filed by the original writ petitioners
are dismissed."
7. It is thereafter, the review petition was filed before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was decided by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court on 10.12.2024. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed as follows:-
"3. However, to avoid any confusion, we again clarify
that the 18 months diploma obtained by such persons, who
were in employment as on 10.08.2017 and who have
completed the diploma course of 18 months, would be
treated as valid diploma holders for the purpose of applying
in other institutes or for promotional avenues.
4. Needless to state that the clarification will be
effective from the date of pronouncement of the judgment
under review."
8. It is at that stage the petitioners have approached this
Court seeking directions to the respondent so as to consider the
candidature of the petitioners for appointment to the post of
Assistant Teachers in government schools.
9. Today, as soon as the matter is taken up, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners in WPSS No.2419 of 2024,
Vishwanath Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, and WPSS No.4
of 2025, Umesh Aaarya and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and
Others, joined the proceedings through video conferencing and
submits that in a transfer petition, being Transfer Petition (C) Nos.
42-43 of 2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided both these
writ petitions. The judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Transfer Petition (C) Nos. 42-43 of 2025, dated
05.03.2025, has also been tendered for the perusal of the Court,
which is taken on record. By this order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has, in fact, decided WPSS No.2419 of 2024 and WPSS No.4 of
2025. Both these petitions were earlier tagged with the present
bunch of the writ petitions. In this judgment dated 05.03.2025,
passed in Transfer Petition (C) Nos. 42-43 of 2025, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in Para 20, observed as follows:-
"20. No doubt that, this Court has upheld the 2012
Rules framed by the State Government, vide the judgment
dated 28th November 2023. However, at the same time,
this Court had clarified that such of the teachers, who were
already in employment as on 10th August 2017, would be
entitled to the benefit of One Time Scheme provided by the
Government of India. This Court had held that such of the
teachers who have completed the diploma course of 18
months would be treated as valid diploma holders for the
purpose of applying in other institutions or for promotional
avenues."
10. During the course of hearing, today, Government Order
No.289654/XXIV-A-1/2025-49375/2023, dated 15.04.2025, has
also been placed for the perusal of the Court, which has taken note
of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Transfer
Petition (C) Nos. 42-43 of 2025, on 05.03.2025, and, thereafter,
directed that all such candidates, who were in service on
10.08.2017, and who had obtained 18 months D.El.Ed. diploma,
pursuant to NCTE recognition order dated 22.09.2017, from NIOS
through ODL mode, may also be considered for their recruitment to
the post of Assistant Teachers.
11. Learned counsel for the NCTE would submit that, in
fact, NCTE has already taken a decision on this aspect on
27.03.2025, and had communicated it to all the State Government
by their communication dated 27.01.2025, which reads as follows:-
"12. In pursuance of filing of Review Petition (Diary
No.4961 of 2024) against the judgment dated 28.11.2023
passed in Civil Appeal No.7873 of 2023 titled Viswanath
and Others Vs. The State of Uttarakhand, the Hon'ble Apex
Court vide Order dated 10.12.2024 (Copy attached) has
further clarified that the 18 months diploma which has
been obtained by persons who were employed on or before
10.08.2017 would be treated as a valid diploma for the
purpose of applying in other institutions or for promotional
avenues."
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that
in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the review petition, all the petitioners are also entitled to be
considered for their recruitment to the post of Assistant Teacher,
Government Primary School, because they all were in service on
10.08.2017, and they had obtained 18 months' diploma. It is
further argued that now the Hon'ble Supreme Court had further
clarified this on 05.03.2025, while deciding the Transfer Petition (C)
Nos. 42-43 of 2025.
13. Learned State Counsel would submit that in view of the
judgment dated 05.03.2025, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Transfer Petition (C) Nos. 42-43 of 2025, the State Government
has already issued a government order dated 15.04.2025, and
according to Para 7 of this Government order, the cases of such
candidates would be considered in accordance with law.
14. In fact, what was in issue was as to whether such
candidates, who were in service in primary schools on 10.08.2017,
and who obtained D.El.Ed. course from NIOS, through ODL mode
till 01.04.2019 would be eligible for participating in the recruitment
process for Assistant Teachers, Government Primary Schools?
15. As stated in the first petitions, this Court has held that
the 18 months D.EL.Ed programme conducted through ODL mode
in elementary education by NIOS is a valid diploma for applying
against the regular post of Assistant Teachers (Primary) in the State
of Uttarakhand. But, this judgment dated 14.09.2022, passed in
the first petition, has been upset by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the appeal. But in Para 41 of it, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed that, "the communication dated 6th September 2019
of NCTE, the directives of MHRD so also the recognition order
dated 22nd September 2017 clearly go on to show that the 18
months Diploma was provided as a one time window to the in-
service teachers to acquire the minimum qualifications
between the 2017 Amendment Act and the outer limit of 1st
April 2019."
16. This has further been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the review petition, wherein Para 3 of its order dated
10.12.2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further reiterated that, "to
avoid any confusion, we again clarify that the 18 months
diploma obtained by such persons, who were in employment as
on 10.08.2017 and who have completed the diploma course of
18 months, would be treated as valid diploma holders for the
purpose of applying in other institutes or for promotional
avenues."
17. This has further been reiterated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in its judgment dated 05.03.2025, passed in
Transfer Petition (C) Nos. 42-43 of 2025. In fact, post judgment
dated 05.03.2025, Government of Uttarakhand had also issued a
Government order dated 15.04.2025. There remains no confusion
now.
18. In view of the above, the State Government is directed
to consider the claim of the petitioners in accordance with the
clarification dated 10.12.2024, issued in the review petitions, and if
the petitioners are found to be eligible, to appoint them in
accordance with law.
19. It is further clarified that while doing so, the State
Government would not reopen the selection already conducted,
which has reached finality.
20. All the writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
29.04.2025
Ravi Bisht
