"35. The appellants would, undoubtedly, point out
that this paragraph would emphasize that it is for the
State Government to conduct the State Eligibility
Test and that if at all the B.Ed. degree holders were
to be rendered eligible for appearing in the TET
conducted by the State Government. This relaxation
does not extend to the eligibility test, which was
being conducted by the Central Government and
which awarded the certificate called as CTET. We
may also see Annexure 6, which 9 is a Notification
issued by NCTE again under Section 23(2) dated
12.08.2014. Therein, paragraph 3 is similarly worded
as paragraph 3, which we have extracted for the
earlier years of Notification issued under Section
23(2) of the 2009 Act. Therefore, it could
undoubtedly be said that, read along with the terms
and conditions issued by CBSE, wherein B.Ed.
degree holders are conspicuous by their absence as
eligible persons, the party respondents, who had
obtained CTET after 2011 were, indeed, not eligible
to sit for the test. We may in this regard also refer to
paragraph 19 10 of the guidelines referred to by the
learned Additional Advocate General. It prima facie
appears to us that the scheme of the guidelines is that
CTET is to be conducted by the Central Government
and which will apply to the schools referred to in
sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Section 2 of 2009 Act.
Section 2(a)(i) reads as follows:
36. Clause 10(b) refers to TET conducted by the
State Government or a Union Territory. It is to
apply to the schools of the State Government/Union
Territory with legislature and local authority
referred to in sub-clause (i) of Clause (n) of Section 2
of the 2009 Act. Section 2(n)(i) of the 2009 Act reads
as follows: "2(n) "school" means any recognised
school imparting elementary education and includes
- (i) a school established, owned or controlled by the
appropriate Government or a local authority;"
7. At this juncture, the stand of the NCTE was also taken into
consideration by the Division Bench in paragraph 22 of the
judgment dated 28.09.2018, is also being reproduced herein as
under:
"Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, learned counsel appearing for
NCTE would submit that the purpose of grant of
CTET is to be understood from the terms of Clause
10 of the guidelines and it is meant, essentially, for
the Central Government Schools, whereas TET
imparted by State is meant for State Government
schools. He would submit that the Notifications,
which have been issued under Section 23(2) of the
2009 Act, are essentially meant for facilitating
persons obtaining TET from the State authority."
8. On 08.01.2025, the Director was instructed to explain about
the stand of NCTE and to explain why advertisement dated
17.02.2016 was issued in complete violation of the Uttarakhand
Government Elementary Education Teacher (Amended) Service
Rules, 2016 notified on 16.01.2016. Surprisingly, respondents
could not explain the query and after considering the arguments
of learned counsel for the parties this Court observed that
candidates having CTET are not eligible for appointment. Certain
observations were made by this Court in its order dated
19.02.2025 relevant extract of which are as under:
"5. After arguing at length prima-facie it appears
that the candidate having CTET are not eligible for
an appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in
primary institution. For this purposes two
documents are relevant, the first one is the NCT
notification dated 23.08.2010 and another document
is the amendment to 2012 Rules amended by
notification dated 18.01.2016.
6. On reading the NCT notification as well as the
amended rules it is very clear that only those
candidates having B.Ed. upto 31.03.2016 with TET
qualification are eligible to be appointed.
7. Now, two dates are relevant first is 18.01.2016
when the notification was issued by which the Rules
of 2012 were amended and as per the amended Rules
only TET qualified candidates conducted by the State
are eligible. Another date is 17.02.2024, which is a
date when the advertisement was issued and the
selection process were initiated and on the said
selection the private respondents were appointed.
8. The issue as raised in this petition is with regard
to the challenge to the appointment of the private
respondents on the ground that they are not eligible
at all since they are not having the TET qualification
rather they are having CTET, therefore, their
appointment are liable to be quashed.
9. Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned senior counsel, who
appears for the private respondents, submits that
under the service jurisprudence the recruitment
always governed by the advertisement and for all
purposes to examine the recruitment only
advertisement has to be seen.
10. The argument as advanced by the learned senior
counsel Mr. A.S. Rawat is outrightly rejected since
the same are misconceived.
11. On perusal of the advertisement it reveals that in
the advertisement under the column with regard to
the eligibility the CTET trained candidates were also
treated to be eligible, which is admittedly contrary to
the Rules of 2012, which were amended by
notification dated 18.01.2016.
12. Thus, prima-facie it appears that the
advertisement was completely in violation of the
statutory rules and not only this it also contrary to
the notification issued by the NCTE dated
23.08.2014. Thus, prima-facie it appears that the
entire selection are bad since the same are contrary to
the statutory rules and the NCTE notification.
13. Thus, to examine if the entire selection are
contrary to the rules and the notification of the
NCTE what further steps has to be taken."
9. The matter was again heard at length on 30.04.2025 and the
Chief Secretary also joined the proceedings through V.C. and the
matter was again posted for another date so that the Chief
Secretary may go through with the judgment of the Division
Bench dated 25.09.2018 whereby the matter was remanded back
to this Court and thereafter, the matter was heard at length on
several dates, which is reflected from the subsequent order of this
Court dated 04.11.2025 and the relevant extract of the order dated
04.11.2025 is being reproduced as under:
"1. This Court on an earlier occasion heard the
matter at length on several occasions and also
observed that entire action as initiated by the
respondents appointing the private respondents is
completely in flagrant violation of the rules as well as
judgment passed by the Division Bench. On
12.12.2024, when this Court was not satisfied and
convinced with the statement of the Secretary given
in additional affidavit, then the Secretary as well as
the Director were directed to join the proceedings
through video conferencing. On 18.12.2024 and that
day the Secretary and the Director joined the
proceedings through video conferencing and stated
that CTET trained candidates are also eligible to be
appointed in terms of Uttarakhand State (Primary
Teacher) Service Rules 2012. This Court after taking
into consideration that the special appeals, which
were decided on 29.05.2018 arising out of the
decision of the learned Single Judge dated 29.07.2016
and the impugned selection were pursuant to an
advertisement dated 07.02.2016, observed that the
statement of the Secretary and Director are
misleading and outrightly rejected their submissions
that the judgment rendered by the Division Bench
dated 29.05.2018 have no relevance in the respect of
the selection of the respondents.
2. On 02.01.2025, this Court further observed that
action of the respondents appointing ineligible
candidates also amount to contemptuous act. Since
instead of giving the appointment to the eligible
candidates, uneligible candidates were given
appointment. Taking into consideration that the
private respondents are serving since last more than
8 years and after such a belated stage their
discontinuation will amount to cause a great
injustice to them, this Court directed to the
respondents if the vacancies are available the
candidature of the petitioners be considered who are
eligible as per the rules prevailing at the relevant
point of time. Thereafter, the matter was again heard
at length on 08.01.2025 and the Director was given
time to explain why the advertisement dated
17.02.2016 was issued in violation of the rules i.e.
Uttarakhand Government Elementary Education
Service Rules 2012 as amended on 16.1.2016.
3. On 19.02.2025, this Court also further observed
that the candidates having CTET are not 3 eligible
for appointment in view of the two Notifications of
NCTE dated 23.08.2010 and 12.08.2014. Not only
this, as per of NCTE only the TET holders are
eligible. In order to assist the Court the Chief
Secretary also joined the proceedings through video
conferencing and also filed the supplementary
counter affidavit and taking into consideration the
supplementary counter affidavit Chief Standing
Counsel was directed to justify the statement as
given in para 4 (3) (4) and (5) of the affidavit of the
Chief Secretary dated 30.05.2025. The statement as
given in para 4 (3), (4) and (5) of the affidavit filed
by the Chief Secretary which are being reproduced
herein as under:-
"(3) That the NCTE has affirmed that State
Government may determine their own policy
provided they align with the overarching
regulatory framework of NCTE. That the
Uttarakhand Elementary Education
(Teachers) Service Rules, 2012, enacted under
the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006,
and amended in 2016, explicitly and
consistently recognize both CTET and UTET
as valid and equivalent qualifications for
teacher eligibility. The 2016 amendment
reaffirmed this equivalence without altering
the core eligibility criteria.
(4) That the recruitment of Assistant Teachers
(Primary) conducted in 2016, pursuant to the
advertisement dated 17.02.2016, was carried
out in strict compliance with the Service
Rules, 2012 (as amended from time to time).
The said advertisement also recognized both
CTET and UTET as valid eligibility criteria,
in accordance with the applicable service rules.
(5) In view of above, especially the service
rules of 2012, a candidate with CTET is also
eligible.
4. On the previous date, Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned
Senior Advocate apprised to this Court that the
vacancies are available and today, Mr. P.S. Bisht also
4 admits that in total 2135 vacancies are available on
a written instructions and despite this the
respondents are not making an attempt to
accommodate these petitioners who in fact are eligible
under the Rules and the appointments were made
given to those who were neither eligible under 2012
Rules nor under the amended Rules 2016."
10. Then again on 11.11.2025, this Court heard the matter at
length and on that Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned Sr. Advocate for the
petitioners argued on certain additional issues, which itself are
reflected from paragraph 2 and 7 of the order dated 11.11.2025.
11. The matter was again heard at length on 14.11.2025 and Mr.
V.B.S. Negi, learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioners harping
upon two clauses of the Notification dated 23.08.2010 as well as
Rule 7 of the Central Teachers Eligibility Examination Rules,
2011. Clauses 1 and 3 of the NCTE Notification dated 23.08.2010
are being reproduced as under:
"1. Minimum Qualification: (i) (a) Senior Secondary
or its equivalent with as least 50% marks and 2 year
Diploma in Elementary education by whatever name
known Senior Secondary or its equivalent with at
least 45% marks and 2 year Diploma in Elementary
education by Senoir Secondary or its equivalent with
at least 50% marks and 2 year Diploma in education
special education And b) Pass in the Teacher
Eligibility Test TET to be conducted by the
appropriate Government in accordance with the
guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose
3. Training to be undergone-A person (a) with
BA/B.Sc with at least 50% marks and B.Ed
qualification shall also be eligible for appointment for
class I to V upto 1st January 2012 provided he
undergoes after appointment an NCTE recognized 6
month special programme in Elementary Education.
(b) With D.Ed Special Education or B.Ed Speciation
Education qualification shall undergo after
appointment and NCTE recognized 6 month special
programme in Elementary education."
12. On that date, Mr. Shanshank Upadhyay, learned counsel
for the CBSE, submitted that after 2011, B.Ed. qualification was
not eligible to appear in CTET examination and CBSE always
invites online form, and, since many persons apply, and,
consequently, they permitted all of them to appear in CTET
Examination and this aspect cannot be verified whether the
concerned person, was, in fact, eligible to appear in CTET
examination or not. He submits that there is no such Notification
of the Central Government or the N.C.T.E. giving relaxation to
B.Ed. trained candidates to appear in the CTET examination after
2011for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary
Institution imparting teaching from Class I to V. He submits that
while submitting online forms, the private respondents 6 have
not disclosed that in fact they are not eligible for the CTET
examination, therefore, they could not verify this aspect but
under Rule 2011, it was legal obligation upon concerned State
Government and their officials as well as recruiting agencies to
verify whether the CTET certificate are valid for appointment to
the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary Institution and it
appears that without examining the credentials particularly year
of CTET certificate of private respondents appointments were
offered.
13. Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, learned counsel for the NCTE also
submits that the stand of the NCTE is very clear that there is no
such notification of the Central Government or the NCTE giving
relaxation to the B.Ed. candidates to appear in CTET to be
conducted by CBSE after 2011 and this much relaxation was
given to the B.Ed. candidates who completed B.Ed. upto
31.03.2016 to appear in TET examination to be conducted by the
State of Uttarakhand only.
14. In view of arguments as advanced by learned counsel for
the parties on different dates, this Court is of the prima facie view
that private respondents were not eligible to be appointed as an
Assistant Teacher in Primary Schools.
15. This Court granted ample opportunities to the respondents
to find the way out particularly taking into consideration that the
private respondents are serving in the Department for the last
more than 7-8 years, however, the official respondents are so
rigid and adamant that they are repeatedly taking the same stand
which they have taken before the Division Bench, which in fact
was turn down by the Division Bench. Therefore, this Court is of
the view that official concerned, who offered appointment to the
candidates, who were not even eligible to participate in the CTET
examination, are responsible to offer illegal appointment by
ignoring the claim of those, who were eligible as per the
prevailing Rules and the NCTE Notification. Offering
appointment to the persons, who were not eligible by ignoring
the eligible candidates is certainly a serious issue, therefore, on
the next the respondents shall disclose the name of the concerned
official who were responsible in offering such illegal
appointment.
16. On the previous date, learned counsel for the petitioners
also has apprised to this Court that in the entire State, large
number of vacancies have been advertised for appointment to the
post of Assistant Teacher in Elementary Institutions,
consequently, this Court directed to keep 11 posts of Assistant
Teacher vacant and in compliance thereof, the Secretary,
Education filed an affidavit by enclosing an office order dated
12.12.2025 with regard to keeping 11 posts vacant.
17. There is no dispute that petitioners who are having TET
qualification are eligible for appointment on the post of Assistant
Teacher and not only this they were eligible at the relevant time
when the advertisement was issued in the year 2016.
Accordingly, an ad interim Mandamus is being issued to the the
official respondents consider the candidature of the petitioners
for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Elementary
Education against the 11 posts which has been kept vacant by the
Department. Pursuant to the order of this Court and the entire
exercise shall be completed by the respondent Department
positively within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
18. It is made clear that offer of appointment to the petitioners
shall be provisional subject to the final outcome of the writ
petitions. On the next date, the State shall apprise to this Court
the details of those officials, who have given appointment to the
private respondents pursuant to the advertisement of 2016.
19. List on 16.02.2026.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
16.12.2025
SKS
