[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Mamta Pal And Others ......Petitioners vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 2 December, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 506 of 2025
Mamta Pal and Others ......Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ..... Respondents
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 507 of 2025
Sandeep Singh ......Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ..... Respondents
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 508 of 2025
Sarita Negi and Others ......Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ..... Respondents
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 509 of 2025
Munna Lal and Others ......Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ..... Respondents
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Mr. Shakib Husain and Mr. Aayush Gaur,
Advocates for the petitioners.
Mr. P.S. Bisht, Additional C.S.C. for the State/respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Yogesh Pacholiya, Advocate for the respondent no.3.
Mr. Shashank Upadhyaya, Advocate for the respondent no.4.
Mr. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Arjun Arora, Advocate for the respondent no.2, through video
conferencing.
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Heard.
2. Admit.
3. Learned C.S.C. takes notices for the respondent
nos. 1 and 2.
4. Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, Advocate takes notices for
the respondent no.3.
5. Mr. Shashank Upadhyaya, Advocate takes
notices for the respondent no.4.
6. Respondents may file counter affidavit within
three weeks.
7. Two weeks, thereafter, rejoinder affidavit, if any,
may be filed.
8. List thereafter, for final hearing.
9. Heard on Interim Relief Applications, IA No.1 of
2025, filed in all the writ petitions.
10. By means of instant petition, the petitioners
have challenged the vires of the Uttarakhand Government
Primary Education (Teachers) (Amendments) Service Rules,
2025. Petitioners also seek direction to the respondents to
provisionally permit them to participate on the ongoing process
of recruitment of Assistant Teacher Primary School ("the
Examination"), pursuant to the advertisement dated
07.11.2025. The Interim Relief Application has been filed so as
to issue an ad interim mandamus, directing and commanding
the respondents to provisionally permit the petitioners to
participate in the Examination.
11. It is the case of the petitioners that they are
B.Ed. qualified, who have also undergone six months Bridge
Course. It is further case of the petitioners that initially B.Ed.
qualified candidates were not considered as eligible for
appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary), but
subsequently, vide notification dated 28.06.2018 issued by the
National Council for Teachers Education ("the NCTE"), the
B.Ed. qualification was included as one of the qualifications for
appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary). By this
notification, it was provided that B.Ed. qualified candidates will
have to undergo six months Bridge Course for being eligible for
appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary).
12. It is further case of the petitioners that
Notification dated 28.06.2018 issued by the NCTE was
ultimately declared unconstitutional by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court on 11.08.2023 in the case of Devesh Sharma vs. Union of
India and others, (2023)18 SCC 339, which was reviewed on
08.04.2024, when the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that the
judgment dated 11.08.2025 passed in the case of Devesh
Sharma (supra) shall have prospective operation only. The
petitioners further state that in its order dated 08.04.2024,
passed in the review petition in the case of Devesh Sharma
(supra), the issue with regard to backlog vacancies prior to the
passing of the aforesaid judgment has not been dealt with and
the issue is still open for consideration, as to whether the
candidates who were having the essential qualification as
prescribed by NCTE notification dated 28.06.2018 are relevant
for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) or
not.
13. It is further case of the petitioners that now
advertisement has been issued for appointment on the post of
Assistant Teacher (Primary) and the vacancies also include the
backlog vacancies, therefore, the petitioners are eligible as per
NCTE notification dated 28.06.2018, therefore, their legitimate
chance of selection may not be curtailed by the respondents'
authorities.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an interim order on 21.11.2025
in Transfer Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).11895/2025, Subhash
Chand & others vs. State of Punjab & others and permitted
similarly situated applicants to participate provisionally in the
selection process.
15. Learned counsel for NCTE submits that
pursuant to the judgment dated 11.08.2023 passed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Devesh Sharma (supra), the NCTE
wrote letters to all the Chief Secretaries of all the State
Governments, requiring them to change their Rules. He
submits that accordingly, the State of Uttarakhand had
changed the Rules and deleted the B.Ed. qualification for
appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher Primary School.
Validity of these Rules has also been challenged by the
petitioners.
16. Learned State Counsel submits that petitioners
are not eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher
Primary School. He would submit that in the case of Devesh
Sharma (supra) on Review Petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
on 08.04.2024, protected the rights of such candidates who had
already been appointed prior to judgment dated 11.08.2023
passed in the case of Devesh Sharma (supra) and the Court had
categorically stated that the prospective operation of that
judgment shall be only for those candidates who were appointed
without any qualification or conditions imposed by any court of
Law.
17. Learned State Counsel also submits that, in
fact, the controversy has already been resolved by this Court on
19.12.2024, in WPSB No. 671 of 2024, Mohit Kumar and
Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, and connected
matters, when this Court has held that, "Hon'ble Supreme
Court has provided for bridge course only for such
candidates who were appointed as teacher in Government
Primary Schools on the strength of their B.Ed. qualification
after due selection. The protection given by Hon'ble
Supreme Court is not available to petitioners, as they are
aspiring for appointment as teacher in a Government
Primary School and there is no threat to their employment
as teacher in the private schools, where they are serving."
18. It is true that on 21.11.2025, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has passed an interim order in Transfer Petition
(Civil) Diary No(s).11895/2025, Subhash Chand and Others,
Vs. State of Punjab and Others, when, on behalf of the
petitioners in that case, it was argued that the petitioners of
that case belong to B.Ed as well as Bridge course qualified, and
they were never non-suited in any of the earlier
judgments/orders passed by this Court.
19. In fact, in the case of Devesh Sharma (supra),
the notification dated 28.06.2018 of the NCTE was quashed by
the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, and this was upheld by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. The sole issue was with regard to the
qualification of Basic School Teachers. The notification dated
28.06.2018 of the NCTE had made such candidates eligible for
appointment to the primary school, who were B.Ed qualified
and had undergone six months' Bridge course in elementary
education recognized by NCTE. This notification is reproduced
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 51 in the case of Devesh
Sharma (supra). In Para 32 of the judgment in the case of
Devesh Sharma (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed that, "A person who has a BEd qualification has
been trained to impart teaching to secondary and higher
secondary level of students. He is not expected to impart
training to primary level students." Further, in Para 37, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that, "Diploma in
Elementary Education (DElEd) and not BEd, is the proper
qualification in Primary Schools." In Para 37, 41 and 42 of the
judgment in the case of Devesh Sharma (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed as follows:-
"37. Moreover, the inclusion of BEd candidates for
primary classes is in the teeth of several decisions of this
Court, as this Court has consistently held that Diploma in
Elementary Education (DElEd) and not BEd, is the proper
qualification in Primary Schools."
"41. BEd is not a qualification for teachers at Primary
level of schooling. The pedagogical skills and training
required from a teacher at Primary level is not expected
from a BEd trained teacher. They are trained to teach
classes at higher level, post primary, secondary and
above. For Primary level i.e. Class I to Class V the training
is DElEd or what is known as Diploma in Elementary
Education. It is a DElEd training course which is
designed and structured to impart skills in a teacher who
is to teach Primary level of students."
"42. Therefore, by implication the inclusion of BEd as a
qualification amounts to lowering down of the "quality" of
education at Primary level. "Quality" of education which
was such an important component of the entire
elementary education movement in this country, which
we have discussed in the preceding paragraphs of this
order."
20. After discussing the eligibility of B.Ed qualified
candidates for appointment in Assistant Teacher (Primary)
School, in Para 61 and 63 of the judgment in the case of Devesh
Sharma (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as
follows:-
"61. Unlike Diploma in Elementary Education (DElEd),
BEd does not equip a teacher to teach at primary level.
This fact is implicitly recognised in the Notification as well
(Notification dated 28-6-2018), which still requires a
person, who is appointed as a teacher with BEd
qualification to "mandatorily undergo a six-month Bridge
Course in Elementary Education". This defeats the very
logic of including BEd as a qualification, as the very
notification which pushes for the inclusion of BEd, also
recognises its inherent pedagogical weakness in its
relation to primary classes. It is to cover this defect, that
all such candidates, must undergo a mandatory six
months' Bridge Course in Elementary Education! The
irony here is that all this is being done when the State of
Rajasthan already has more than the required number of
Diploma qualified candidates available. This is besides the
fact that there is presently no such "bridge course"
available; at least there was none till the disposal of the
petition by the Rajasthan High Court."
"63. In our considered opinion, therefore, NCTE was not
justified in including BEd as a qualification for
appointment to the post of primary school teacher (Level
1), a qualification it had so far consciously kept out of the
eligibility requirement. The Rajasthan High Court by way
of the impugned judgment Rajendra Singh
Chotiya v. NCTE, 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 4372, had rightly
struck down the Notification dated 28-6-2018, on the
following grounds :
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
...................................................................................."
21. Admittedly, the petitioners were not working in
any government school as an Assistant Teacher (Primary)
School, when initially the judgment was given in the case of
Devesh Sharma (supra), by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
22. In fact, in the case of Devesh Sharma (supra),
the only issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was as to
whether a B.Ed qualified candidate, who had undergone six
months' Bridge course, is eligible for appointment as Assistant
Teacher (Primary) School, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court
answered it that such candidate is not qualified to be appointed
as an Assistant Teacher (Primary) School. Therefore, there is no
reason to grant interim relief to the petitioners. Accordingly,
the interim relief applications are rejected.
(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
02.12.2025
Ravi Bisht
